Forums → WEPR → Poor people and Rich people.
| 143 | 23490 |
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
Im just refuting your false premises of Capitalism being so wonderful.
It's not. But neither is Communism. For the simple fact that neither is done right. Communism is only great in principal but is frigged up in practice. Capitalism is only great for the wealthy.
What kind of world would it be if everyone was middle class? We'd have to start dividing the middle class into middle middle low class or middle high low class. And what kind of world would that be? A stupid kind.
??
It's not. But neither is Communism. For the simple fact that neither is done right. Communism is only great in principal but is frigged up in practice. Capitalism is only great for the wealthy.
I don't know how to respond to that. But Flipski seems to think that capitalism is doing a wonderful job right now. That there is hardly any trouble in the world.
No I'm sorry if I come off seeming like capitalism is the savior to all government, because it's definatley not. It's corrupt, ruled by the rich, and it has many downsides and downfalls.
Communism on the other hand looks like heaven on paper. And if it was done the way that it is intended, it would be the most amazing government in the world. Its really a great idea. But very difficult to implement as planned, and to keep people happy.
The only problem is that all of the communist governments in the past have reached a similar downfall, and similar struggles.
I am just basing my debate on how things have played out in the past. And based on observations on past governments, I feel that Capitalism has allowed for more opportunities, and more freedoms which result in a happier and more innovative nation. (definatley not recently)
I by no means am trying to bash communism and to make it seem like American is such an amazing nation, because its not.
I don't think Obama will do as much good as everyone thinks, but I hope at least the rest of the world won't think Americans are a bunch of white supremist rednecks, when we have a more internationally knowledgeable individual.
And I do not think the United States is doing great by any means. I have been extremely dissapointed in the government since I started to pay attention to Politics. I do not at all think that the US is a freedom fighter, I believe that the US invading other countries because of differences in culture, and for personal gains is completely disgusting. I think we are as much, if not more, a terrorist than the people who terrorize us. And we have brought the terrorist attacks on ourselves.
Please don't assume that Americans are all a bunch of G.W. Bushes sitting at McDonalds. This is entirely untrue. And ignorant on your part. I admit that what I said before might be biased against Russian Communism, as I was born in Poland. But I try to look at both sides of the argument as much as possible. And most of my arguments are a sincere look at history and the information I have, and they are not based on an ignorant "Hoora"! Americansim.
I'm not going to whine over this. But. The wealthy who are usually made in America (not the rest of the world) are people who tried in life to get a good job, those that didn't probably end up poor, so I don't care about them, They can go ahead and complain about how much their life sucks, but I bet they were just idiots when they were young and screwed their life. NOT MY FAULT. Anyway, on an American standpoint those that are poor are probably poor because of themselves and because of that they deserve to be hurt by capitalism.
Worldwide, though, obviously, not everyone gets the opportunity to be forced to go to school till 16. Because of that theres a substantial amount of people WITHTOUT over 3$ a day. We can't help it, but pfft, we can try.
the US sucks in the Government, and I completely agree with the agove post. Also, A communist country would work if it had no outside relations, was extremey small with few inhabitants, you can just rule a communist country thats so huge.
So in america, if your poor I LAWL at you. Anywhere else, I'm sorry, but the world isn't perfect.
And yeah, we get richer because poor ppl get poorer, after all, I doubt many of the poor people around are reading this thread anyway.
The only problem is that all of the communist governments in the past have reached a similar downfall, and similar struggles.
Might you use example then? You really have not given any. What happened in the USSR, China, North Korea, etc is much more complicated then "It was socialist, it failed. Thus communism sucks".
I don't think Obama will do as much good as everyone thinks, but I hope at least the rest of the world won't think Americans are a bunch of white supremist rednecks, when we have a more internationally knowledgeable individual.
Thats only because his black, I suppose. Sure they may look at the American people differently, but Obama isn't going to change the White House.
Please don't assume that Americans are all a bunch of G.W. Bushes sitting at McDonalds. This is entirely untrue. And ignorant on your part.
I don't and I have not at all mentioned this.
And based on observations on past governments, I feel that Capitalism has allowed for more opportunities, and more freedoms which result in a happier and more innovative nation. (definatley not recently)
This is of course in the first world countries. And this is through imperialist policies. Make life hell somewhere else so your empire can enjoy the benefits.
And Flipski, it still seems you have a misunderstanding of communism since you bring up the term "communist country".
@Armed_Blade,
Most rich now are rich because of their wealthy parents. Same with the poor. And even if you "tried" in life doesn't mean you should have such immense amount of wealth and such control of the world.
Originally posted by Drace
Most rich now are rich because of their wealthy parents. Same with the poor. And even if you "tried" in life doesn't mean you should have such immense amount of wealth and such control of the world.
Completely a blanket statement. Depending on your standards of "rich", that is most definitely not true. My parents, and the parents of most of my friends, were immigrants to the United States. They came with relatively nothing and worked their a**es off to get where they are today. What did my father come with? A foreign degree in medicine and a couple thousand dollars, and my mother came here only because her sister was already in the United States. She came with nothing.
The end result: Am I rich? Personally I don't think so. Am I comfortably well off? Yes.
There's a big difference between people "trying" and just saying f--k it, this is too hard, and people trying and not giving up. In the United States, aside from a number of specific cases, I would say overall, poverty is due to a lack of motivation and effort on the part of the poor.
In response to crazyjayz:
(it's what we use in the US), but isn't how the government uses that money more important?
Yes most definitely. The point i was trying to make was that even in capitalist societies the government does make an effort to level the playing field by using progressive taxation. I agree with the concept, but i agree that what the money gets spent on is of paramount importance.
Undeveloped countries are the result of capitalism and the profit driven imperialism.
Gross oversimplification. There are sooooooooo many other factors than that leading to Africa's underdevelopment. Eg AIDs a lack of economically active people, corrupt regimes all over, wars raging across the continent at all times. You cannot blame capitalism for that.
China has barely any socialist policies and is profit driven. And might I tell you many Chinese workers work for Western factories.
Before China became a communist nation its global share of wealth was huge, near 20%. When it became communist this dropped to 2%. The only reason it has prospered lately is due to the government letting forms of capitalism leak into the system, showing that economically, on a national scale t least, capitalism is healthy.
And this isn't true. Soviet living standards was increasing all the way until its end. Now its declining in Russia.
Don't think that communism was the one and only cause of this in Russia because it wasn't. This began back in the 1860s with Tsar Alexander IIs reforms. This was continued throughout the 19th century by ALexander II and then Nicholas II in the early 20th century. The reason the autocratic system fell was because they reformed economically and not socially.
In addition one of the main reasons Russia is suffering now is the stupidity of the Soviets. Their spending bankrupted russia. When Gorbachov's administration effectively ended communism there was only 2 weeks worth of pay left for all the civil servants and military personnel. This effectively bankrupted Russia for the subsequent 10 years showing communissm to be a poor system in the long term.
And Flipski, it still seems you have a misunderstanding of communism since you bring up the term "communist country".
Just because communism is supposed to be a global ideal (hence the name change to the USSR not Russia) doesn't mean that Flipski is nescessarily wrong. How on earth you belive that communism would realistically cover the globe is beyond me. Why would the rich nations like the USA,GBR,Fr for example spread their wealth? Even if this were to happen how would this be managed? What units of measurement would be used to claissify this wealth.
Indeed who would decide who receives this wealth? Marx himself in his manifesto was extremely vague as to how resources would be allocated simply stating that everyone would work according to their abilities and paid back according to their needs. How would anyone codify this vague theory into a set of rules able to transcend cultures and societies?
Good response Woody, but I don't have the strength to go on =/
Getting tired here. Gonna play some Sonny.
I think it's kinda funny how every conversation about politics + economy = communism.
I think it's kinda funny how every conversation about politics + economy = communism
hehe true. I think my last post put a stop to any commie uprisings for a while.
The usa is COMMI!! we all kno it! ._.
Jk. But there you have it, n idiot upspring. XD
Anyway __
I'm with Woodi on this one.
But btw, in the USSR-- Ever since the start living standards were increasing, but thats because the last Tsar sucked and obviously now that the USSR was peaceful Communism did put living standards up, but they weren't all that sweet, unless you were a rich man in Moscow or something, around the country (Russia itself) it would take years to get a pair of shoes. So Idk.
hehe true. I think my last post put a stop to any commie uprisings for a while.
You pretty much chased me away from the Politics section :-$ Too tiring to be here.
But btw, in the USSR-- Ever since the start living standards were increasing, but thats because the last Tsar sucked and obviously now that the USSR was peaceful Communism did put living standards up, but they weren't all that sweet, unless you were a rich man in Moscow or something, around the country (Russia itself). So Idk.
All Tsars suck? And yes, it just came out of a revolution and a 3 year civil war.
it would take years to get a pair of shoes
I highly doubt that information.
__________
NO I REPLIED!!!!!!!!
No, Its pretty true. The U.S.S.R. only sold their products, only a few types of shoes, a few types of clothings, and cars costed a crapload.
And thats true, the "might" of the U.S.S.R. only reached its European area's. The republics of the USSR and the Asian side were poorer, not only that for many regular people there was only USSR made things, shoes, clothing, whatever, even cars. Because of this not only did these people not have choices, it was hard work to get things. You'd have to save years for a car, and buying things was very hard seeing as everything was government owned.
So doubt the info, but, Idk, I learned that a few days ago. Maybe my teacher is an idiot o.O... I've always thought that >.>
___________________________
I REPLIED TOO!!!!!!!!!!! (Not that it matters >.>
It's funny that whenever someone says communism, everyone says "HELL NO I DUN WANNA B A COMMIE BASTURD!1"
Communism can actually work out, under the perfect conditions. The USSR just didn't have enough money to spread evenly, and they did it poorly.
Originally posted by ZekePowerful
Communism can actually work out, under the perfect conditions. The USSR just didn't have enough money to spread evenly, and they did it poorly.
As mentioned many times before, communism on paper is AMAZING, but in practice is darn near impossible. It's not that the USSR didn't have enough money, or it was poor execution, it's that the basis of communism is trust, and no one, I mean NO ONE is that trustworthy of other people.
Thread is locked!