I was watching a video yesterday, which I think quoted Sowell, the aged economist. It said that the left cared about complaining about the ills of the poor, but it didn't care about what actually improved the lives of the poor, except on the rare occasion that it could find a piece of evidence that supported the idea that leftist policies had benefited the poor. But it has been able to weave this myth that leftist policies have actually benefited the poor.Tsar wrote: ↑March 3rd, 2024, 8:21 am@MrMan It's almost like you support wealth inequality and neo-serfdom.
Some people are natural aristocrats and not suited to mundane work.
Also, before 1600, everyone owned their own business. Corporations shouldn't exist and wouldn't if it wasn't for the United States deciding to treat them as "legal persons" after slavery was abolished in the aftermath of the Civil War.
America is responsible for destroying this world more than the Industrial Revolution did, and then the Jews escalated their destruction in the World Wars and the aftermath of the World Wars, this we have the world that exists today.
@Pixel--Dude
I think there is some truth to that. Don't you just want to complain about the evils of corporations, or do you care to actually examine whether the system we have now has actually helped raise people out of poverty? Throughout the 20th century to the present, most of the world's countries have participated to some extent in a free market system that has corporations and somewhat free trade. During that time, multitudes have been pulled out of poverty as economies have developed.
Greed is a problem, and if corporations are going to get their existence from the state, the state may need to reign them in a bit. Allowing the existence of corporations is an infringement upon a free market system, IMO. So is requiring doctor's to be licensed and handling that through an independent medical association. These associations may work in their own financial interests to the detriment of the public, but are propped up by government laws. Copyrights and other forms of IP protection are government interference in a free market system, so the government may have to keep regulating them to keep them in line with the public good.
A moral person cares about the poor and wants to share. Should we put all that responsibility onto the state? One of the problems is when rulers in the state have evil agendas and are given more money to manage. We see this also with corporations who want to engage in 'corporate social responsibility.' So they use their shareholder's money to support evil social agendas, or just radical agendas that may be moving society in an direction that is not beneficial.
Political economy is a messy business. But do you have a whole well-thought-out system to replace what we have with? The idea put forth on this forum that people don't work but have a right to food and travel... that's not going to work. Why wouldn't most of us just eat and travel if it's a right? Then who is going to farm, cook the food, and work on the airplanes and in the hotels.
Able-bodied people need to work and need to have an incentive to work to have any kind of sensible economic system. We can all try to do our best to be productive in a way that is well-suited to our desires and interests within whatever constraints we have.
If you want to go with a slightly left-wing perspective on economics, consider the fact that the Labor Party in the UK endorsed Rawlsian ethics when it comes to the economy. Rawls argued that if you were conscious before being born and could choose what kind of world you would be born into, but not who you would be, you would choose a world with basic human rights, and the world where the bottom rung had it pretty good. So Rawlsian approaches to ethics when it comes to economics allows for there to be a great disparity between the rich and the poor as long as the average person on the bottom rung of the economy has it pretty well.
In the US, there are poor people, but a lot of them are able to eat, have TVs, cell phones, and microwave ovens. If homeless is the bottom rung, that's pretty rough, and that has been a growing problem. A lot of the homeless have substance abuse problems, and some of them did bring it on themselves by their own choices even if some of them have weaknesses towards addiction that others do not have. Other people on the street may have mental problems, health problems, or a series of really difficult problems stacked up and left them unable to afford a place to live.