What if There Were No Poor Among Us?

[_Droopy]

Droopy doesn't look like one of the 99% ....

Droopy is that typical 99%er who thinks he'll one day be named in the Last Will and Testament of a Walton, complete with the "25% Off Sam's Club Lifetime Membership" card as long as he consistently votes against his own economic self interest.

My economic self interest is in low taxes, minimal, rational business regulation, low inflation, a business and entrepreneurship friendly political and economic environment, a government that lives within its means and does not seek to permanently expand its power and scope through the manipulation of money and credit, a savings and wealth creation oriented economy over a debt and inflation based redistributive economy, and a growing, dynamic, competitive, innovating, job and opportunity oriented society as free as possible from the economic patronage of certain special interest groups so that they may artificially thrive at the expense of everyone else. There is only one known economic state of affairs that has the slightest degree of competence in achieving these goals and producing general affluence and economic security for the vast majority, and it has two aspects, the first being a free market, competitive economic system, and the second a rule of law and equality under the law based representative democratic political order based in strictly limited government and the concept of unalienable individual rights.

Socialism degrades and destroys both, to the degree it is imposed, and completely destroys both when socialization reaches its apogee (well, not completely. There is always the underground black market economy).

[_Gadianton]

If I had to pick between the libertarian utopia and the socialist utopia, I'd go with the libertarian utopia without question. I'm not a participator. I don't like being told what to do. I don't particularly like telling other people what to do.

As far as getting rid of poverty though, who does it best?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Ind

Until we figure out the secret formula for creating a purely utopian capitalist society, we are forced to take Sweden seriously.

[Guest]

I have no interest in any kind of "Utopia." This is strictly a hypothetical thought experiment intended, more than anything, to get behind the values, assumptions, and motives underlying any actual program.

If everyone could be non-poor through wealth creation in a free market society, why should anyone prefer the elimination of poverty through wealth redistribution in an economically regimented and heavily regulated society?

Are the giving up of a substantial amount of individual economic and political rights a justifiable price to pay for the elimination of poverty, if the same outcome can be achieved without incurring that price?

[_asbestosman]

Are the giving up of a substantial amount of individual economic and political rights a justifiable price to pay for the elimination of poverty, if the same outcome can be achieved without incurring that price?

Hmmm. Let me think about that one. Droopy asked if price P is justifiable for oucome O when outcome O can be achieved at lower cost. Hmm. Is it justifiable to buy a computer for $1000 if I can buy the same computer for $500? Gee, I dunno. I give up.

Also, I don't know who was buried in Grant's tomb or the color of George Washington's white horse.

If everyone could be non-poor through wealth creation in a free market society, why should anyone prefer a the elimination of poverty through wealth redistribution in an economically regimented and heavily regulated society?

Because there is a difference between could and is most likely to.

Furthermore, poverty as I understand it is largely a relative thing. We live better than many wealthy people of the past due to our technology and knowledge. Indoor plumbing is a wonder thing. As time progresses, the standard of living increases as does the baseline for poverty.

[_bcuzbcuz]

Efficient at accomplishing what, you ask?

EVERYTHING. Only one person has to make a decision. No panels, no committees, no voting.

A dictatorship, the ideal in efficiency? Just which dictatorship are you talking about? Chile under Pinochet? North Korea? Ghaddafi? Hitler? Musolini? Stalin? Castro? Would you care to enlighten the rest of us how such dictatorships function? Have you ever lived in a dictatorship, or even visited a dictatorship?

No panels, no committees, no voting? Are you serious? What happens to a dictatorial decision once it leaves the dictator's office? Do not the underlings in a dictatorship discuss, or scramble or avoid, so that no action reflects upon themself? How does a dictator maintain his power? Ever read anything about the Stasi in East Germany? Explain to me how the state police are efficient?

[_subgenius]

Hmmm. Let me think about that one. Droopy asked if price P is justifiable for oucome O when outcome O can be achieved at lower cost. Hmm. Is it justifiable to buy a computer for $1000 if I can buy the same computer for $500? Gee, I dunno. I give up.

This makes no sense. There is no evidence, or reasonable argument, that concludes that O can be achieved at a lower cost. By the rationale in your post i would argue that another system is even better, as noted by the following example:
Is it justifiable to buy a computer for $1000 if i can buy the same computer for $500, or even better steal a truckload of the same computers for $0?
The latter scenario is likely more accomplished due to a somewhat milder criminal system put in place by the political environment created by entitlement fuzzy hippies formulating the economic policy.

Also, I don't know who was buried in Grant's tomb or the color of George Washington's white horse.

i believe this

Because there is a difference between could and is most likely to.

yes, and that difference is irrelevant in the OP's "hypothetical"

Furthermore, poverty as I understand it is largely a relative thing. We live better than many wealthy people of the past due to our technology and knowledge. Indoor plumbing is a wonder thing. As time progresses, the standard of living increases as does the baseline for poverty.

Largely relative to what exactly? spoken like a person who has never gone "without".
Poverty has nothing to do with "value".
Am i the only one who notices that this post is actually claiming that poor people today are better off than poor people of the past? As if to say that suffering from malnutrition and/or starving to death is much nicer than it use to be......really??? people still reason things out this way?

[_Buffalo]

"Buffalo"

You cannot shift more resources to fewer people without leaving the majority with less, Droopy. That's basic math.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

Perhaps this will help:

Trying to educate you as to why the cake and slices analogy of a free market economy is a strawman and a red herring is probably futile, but suffice it to say that in an economy such as that in the U.S., at least considering all of its attributes that represent the unhampered market working basically without distortions and destructive mutations introduced through various forms of state interventionism, wealth is not "shifted" from the poor to the rich. The rich invest in productive economic activities and create jobs. Employees participate in the production of wealth and are remunerated according to their contribution to the productive process. The poor, the middle classes, and everybody participates in the creation of wealth. In that process, a fraction of that wealth moves to "the rich" as their fellow citizens trade a portion of their property for the goods/services "the rich" are key in producing through their own risk, savings, and investment.

For those who just will not "get it," here, this translates roughly into "Let's go shopping."

In point of fact, "the rich" generate wealth and wealth creation opportunities for "the poor" by creating jobs, opportunity, encouraging general economic growth across the entire society, and improve everybody's lot over time through a general rise in living standards and technological improvement that are the inherent concomitants of a free, dynamic, growth oriented economic order. If anything, the wealthy "shift" a vast amount of wealth, through entrepreneurial investment, to all the socioeconomic strata below them while those below them reap the benefits of jobs, careers, economic independence, and upward mobility into the realms of "the rich," if they have the talent, aptitude, and desire to do so.

In a nutshell, in a free maket society, there is no set, static pile of money out there (cake) that has a limited number of "shares" that must be devided up between the entire population. Nor is there a class of "rich" People who somehow got a hold of more than there share and shifted it to themselves at the expense of the rest. This evil, destructive nonsense has done, in my estimation, far more than its share of human damage already, and why it still lingers like a twitching intellectual corpse in the morgue of failed human ideologies strains credulity to its limits.

All socialism really is is a flight from an economically free, contract based society back to a feudal, status based society in which whether one gets ahead economically is not grounded in what one has to contribute to the productive processes of society, but in what politically designated "class" one permanently resides and who one knows (how well one can ingratiate himself to and massage the powers that be within the omnipresent, omniscient state).[/quote]

No one said that total wealth was static. That's your strawman. But it IS finite, and it has been undeniably shifting upwards for years.

[_asbestosman]

This makes no sense. There is no evidence, or reasonable argument, that concludes that O can be achieved at a lower cost. By the rationale in your post i would argue that another system is even better, as noted by the following example:
Is it justifiable to buy a computer for $1000 if i can buy the same computer for $500, or even better steal a truckload of the same computers for $0?
The latter scenario is likely more accomplished due to a somewhat milder criminal system put in place by the political environment created by entitlement fuzzy hippies formulating the economic policy.

I think you missed my point. What I was trying to say is that Droopy set the answer in the way he phrased the question. In context, Droopy was expecting us to agree that if the elimination of poverty can be achieved without governmental intervention of taxes, etc. that such a thing is preferable to a system of taxation and welfare. Of course he's right. The question is whether his assumption is valid. I was poking fun at the way he phrased the question. I guess I was a bit too subtle?

Largely relative to what exactly?

To our neighbors. To the present standard of living. At least as far as the statistic is measured (the context under which I made my post).

spoken like a person who has never gone "without".

That is all too true. Well, I mean I was technically below the poverty line when I was a student, but I always had enough for my needs. You know I never had a car until I was married, and I've had that same car (only 1) for 9 years? That's right--one car between two working adults. But of course I'm just a spoiled rich brat.

Am i the only one who notices that this post is actually claiming that poor people today are better off than poor people of the past? As if to say that suffering from malnutrition and/or starving to death is much nicer than it use to be......really??? people still reason things out this way?

When did I say we can ignore the poor? When did I say that their suffering doesn't matter? I have not made such claims because I do not believe such nonsense.

I agree that malnutrition is a constant indication of poverty. However, that is not the only or even the primary standard by which poverty is measured as a statistic. Not everyone who lives in poverty is starving. Do you see the difference?

Furthermore, even if we were to take a society where nobody is dying of malnutrition, I still think there are significant issues in poverty. It takes a toll on mental health, and has societal costs in the form of lower productivity, higher crime rates, and a host of other things.

[_asbestosman]

No one said that total wealth was static. That's your strawman. But it IS finite, and it has been undeniably shifting upwards for years.

Do we have any graphs of the amount (not percentage, but amount) of wealth each class has?

If I understand the dispute, then if Droopy is right, I would expect to see that as the pie grows, the rich take most of it and the poor get a bit too. If you are right, the rich take all of it, and some of the pie from the poor too.

[_Gadianton]

If everyone could be non-poor through wealth creation in a free market society, why should anyone prefer a the elimination of poverty through wealth redistribution in an economically regimented and heavily regulated society?

If there were no market breakdowns I'd go for the unfettered market society. I'd be an anarcho-capitalist, or even just an anarchist.