Forums → WEPR → Poor people and Rich people.
| 143 | 23486 |
I have seen in tv many shows ( news ) about poor people and rich people.
And i think to myself:"How come rich people get more rich and poor people get more poor?".
It is a situation a little bit strange.
I think that it should not be rich and poor people.
Everyone should be fine (relative to money).
People say that money does not bring health and other things.
It is true but it helps.
Tell me what you think about this.
- 143 Replies
Everyone has there own beliefs some people chose to take marx's word as a gospel it's their choice and it can't be that wrong because there isn't one believer there are millions.
Just because many people belive in it doesn't make it true. There is a difference in validity and popularity. It appeals to many people but that doesn't make it true.
In addition just because people don't need toys doesn't mean they are a waste of resources.
A lot of products are. I would not mind having no Ipod, if I never knew it existed. And I wouldn't mind have the first generation if no one else had the newer one. Do you cry because you don't have something that won't be invented for another million years?
Ipods are acceptable though. There are many junk items. And kids would be better off without toys.
To talk statistically, we would need 6 Earths to support ourselves if everyone were at the level of the American consumerist culture. There is a good video on this.
http://www.storyofstuff.com/
And Im tired again...
Of course they do, however the past 100 or so years has proved Marx wrong
Thats something else. I have not read on that so I won't argue.
Everyone has there own beliefs some people chose to take marx's word as a gospel
Is that an insult :-$
I wish much more experienced comrades of mine were on here.
To talk statistically, we would need 6 Earths to support ourselves if everyone were at the level of the American consumerist culture. There is a good video on this.
America is to some extent a culture of waste. Even though America is seen as the closest state to pure capitalism it doesn't accurately represent the developed nations of the world. It is very different from most European nations for example.
Do you cry because you don't have something that won't be invented for another million years?
Of course not, but if communism were introduced tommorrow people would not liket he fact that there would be no more ipod upgrades or the fact there would be less on the general market.
That's what people are used to if they were used to upgrading their values and not their ipods so there could a little respect in this world. People do value their ipods more than their fellow human don't they? That's because of capitalism and people taking advantage of young peoples fragile minds.
That's what people are used to if they were used to upgrading their values and not their ipods so there could a little respect in this world. People do value their ipods more than their fellow human don't they? That's because of capitalism and people taking advantage of young peoples fragile minds.
I have an ipod and i don't know about you, but i don't value it more highly than a human life nor am i without values. You don't have to choose between consumerism and morality.
Of course not, but if communism were introduced tommorrow people would not liket he fact that there would be no more ipod upgrades or the fact there would be less on the general market.
Well it would have to have more gradually. It would follow a revolution and I don't think people would be expecting luxuries right after that.
People do value their ipods more than their fellow human don't they?
No? I got bored of my Ipod 20 minutes after buying it.
The only excitement in it was getting something new.
I didn't say that but a capitalist goverment doesn't value human life in ideas as much as communist goverment it depends on who you are and capitalism encourages people to step on other people just make a bit more money.
And also what i have to say is that i am no communist i believe in free markets and my aim is to be self sufficient, i never want to rely on anybody what i'm arguing about is the ideology.
I didn't say that but a capitalist goverment doesn't value human life in ideas as much as communist goverment it depends on who you are and capitalism encourages people to step on other people just make a bit more money.
Errm hello. Russian/ Chinese history anyone? Their regard for human life was minimal. Millions died as a result of their economic policies leading to famines. Just look at how they treated their soldiers in wars. Chinese human wave tactics, generally the Russian treatment of their own men in WW2. Truly horrific.
If luxuries make people happy, why would they want to convert to a regime which denies them these things?
I said i'm not talking about how people use the system i'm talking ideologicaly. Communism isn't a good system because it has been proved that all it needs to go wrong is one person.
Drace, as Flipski has mentioned, your ideas and citations of Marx's Comm. Mani. are DEAD ON, and no one is going to argue with you on that. THAT, my friends, is a done discussion.
To backtrack a bit, since I've missed out on a lot of this conversation, when I said that communism is based on trust, this is what I meant. The populace, Marx's proletariat, must WHOLEHARTEDLY trust the men (and women) in power, those who make the big decisions for their country. If any of those men in government become corrupt (or any other derivative of the connotation), the whole system fails. Why? Because then 1 person is abusing and taking advantage of EVERYONE contributing to the system. As more and more people then become corrupt, there are less and less contributing, thus, structural failure would be inevitable. This is what I meant by trust. chrishiot88 nicely summed up the gist of my point.
Communism isn't a good system because it has been proved that all it needs to go wrong is one person.
Now this part of my post probably belongs in a full blown communist thread, but here goes. While you're correct Drace about Marx's writing, you're forgetting one main thing, capitalism is not a form of government. In a communist nation it's "all for one and one for all". Everyone contributes, everyone gains. That's their economic logic. On top of that there is also a political logic which is based on centralization, betterment of the people, and trust. Contrary to this, in a capitalist society, there is no political logic attached. Capitalism is (at is essence) everyone out to get as much as possible. But, at least in the United States, the restraining factor to this is the government itself. Our democratic government allows for EVEYRONE to vote, thus playing a role in the rules formed to govern the country, and thus, capitalism itself. I find this to be the BIGGEST difference between communism and capitalism. You can have a dictatorship (a form of politics) and a captalistic society (a form of economics). The same cannot be said for communism.
But WOW, this thread has gone ridiculously off topic. "Poor people and Rich people" guys, not communism (again). Let's try to bring this train back onto the tracks.
But WOW, this thread has gone ridiculously off topic. "Poor people and Rich people" guys, not communism (again). Let's try to bring this train back onto the tracks.
I have seen in tv many shows ( news ) about poor people and rich people.
And i think to myself:"How come rich people get more rich and poor people get more poor?".
It is a situation a little bit strange.
I think that it should not be rich and poor people.
Everyone should be fine (relative to money).
People say that money does not bring health and other things.
It is true but it helps.
Tell me what you think about this.
Original post in the thread.
Funny you should mention this. To me, it sounds like you're suggesting a system much like communism,
The first reply to this thread by hojoko. Like Crazjayz said whenever there is an economic or political thread it always seems to end up on communism. For me a more interesting discussion would be how to solve the gap without bringing communism into the argument. However when you look at the original post it does seem like it is centred on communism just phrased in a different manner, because the original post says that people should all be ok money wise, it is not surprising this thread became communism vs capitlaism oriented.
Drace, as Flipski has mentioned, your ideas and citations of Marx's Comm. Mani. are DEAD ON, and no one is going to argue with you on that. THAT, my friends, is a done discussion.
?
The rich people would have better jobs and therefore a higher income.
The poor people would have worse jobs and therefore a lower income.
Thread is locked!