How is poverty best eliminated?

Henrin said:

You can not separate the land on which my property rests with the ownership of the land itself. If you are to say that the land is owned by everyone, but they may not act towards the property that I have built on their land then you are undoubtedly restricting their right to their land, as now there is a patch of land they have no control over and can not act towards to push forward their own interests. They must instead allow my trees to grow and prosper or my house to stay standing and there is nothing at that point they can do about it. Under a system where all land is owned by everyone and yet individuals own the products of their labor there is no such thing as peace as the ideas that you have laid contradict each other and can not rest without conflict.

As for the idea of rents, it is again an absurdity, as who has the right to charge me rent for property that I justly own? It is as absurd as the red hen being charged by those that didn't help make the bread for the production of the bread itself.

Click to expand...

The Empire State building was built on leased land. So, evidently, it is possible to separate ownership of improvements from ownership of land.

ocean515 said:

Your favorite countries adopted whatever plans their socialist ideas felt was best at the time. As I have been suggesting, the agenda they embrace has failed to live up to it's billing. I contend it will always fail. It is indeed spin to come up with excuses as to why their economic agenda is not working as advertised.

Click to expand...

They "always fail"...which is why the nations with the highest standards of living for the past half century have been those same ones you claim should "always fail"? Do you not see the disconnect there?

Glen Contrarian said:

They "always fail"...which is why the nations with the highest standards of living for the past half century have been those same ones you claim should "always fail"? Do you not see the disconnect there?

Click to expand...

No, I see yours.

Glen Contrarian said:

Countries near the top have high taxes.

Click to expand...

That's incomplete data, and even if it was complete, it would require tons of number crunching. This is what it looks like when you have more complete data and the numbers are crunched. http://www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/html/Publications/papers/report/image/section_5-1.gif
Notice how the countries from the top of the UNHD list are mostly on the left side of this bar graph (lower taxes). The countries on the right side are mostly small countries with narrow demographics, and one of them is also an oil rich country (Norway).

Glen Contrarian said:

And when it comes to regulation, there's no place I know of on the internet that can show you the number of regulations per nation; rather, it takes a measure of experience and common sense.

Click to expand...

This is what it looks like when you combine taxation and regulation. Economic Freedom of the World - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Notice how the countries at the top of this list coincide with the countries at the top of the UNHD list.

Socialism is to economics as creationism is to biology.

ocean515 said:

No, I see yours.

Click to expand...

AGAIN, why are the nations that have had the highest standards of living for the past half century the SAME ones whose economies, according to conservative economic dogma, should be crashing and burning?

You haven't answered this. You've claimed it was answered, but it never was, it never has been, not by you, not by anyone else. I remember specifically the excuses that some more serious conservatives have tried, but their excuses were shot down in every case. You yourself have not even ventured a guess, but are simply claiming it has been answered when it has not been answered at all.

Erdmutter said:

The reason a piece of land is valuable is because of what the government, the community, and nature provide at that location. The landowner is a purely parasitic economic agent who either enjoys that stream of benefits from the community himself without paying the community for it or expects others to pay him rent or the exchange value for that stream of benefits.

Click to expand...

I guess you haven't heard of property taxes, sales taxes, and utility user charges. How would local governments be funded if everyone that lived in their jurisdiction was "a purely parasitic economic agent who ... benefits from the community himself without paying the community...?"

Glen Contrarian said:

AGAIN, why are the nations that have had the highest standards of living for the past half century the SAME ones whose economies, according to conservative economic dogma, should be crashing and burning?

You haven't answered this. You've claimed it was answered, but it never was, it never has been, not by you, not by anyone else. I remember specifically the excuses that some more serious conservatives have tried, but their excuses were shot down in every case. You yourself have not even ventured a guess, but are simply claiming it has been answered when it has not been answered at all.

Click to expand...

Should be crashing and burning? Let the economic realities speak for themselves. It's really easy to create a socialist nirvana when other peoples money is flowing in. When it doesn't flow in, then what. That is why, just like in California, the whole ideology and agenda is unsustainable.

Tell me about the history of all these great countries your so enamored with over the last 100 years. How long have there economic systems been in place? How many have changed, over and over.

Sorry, this rainbow and unicorns deal you're pushing will never last in the long term. It never has, not ever.

End of story.

Glen Contrarian said:

AGAIN, why are the nations that have had the highest standards of living for the past half century the SAME ones whose economies, according to conservative economic dogma, should be crashing and burning?

Click to expand...

:raises eyebrow: I think you are severely confused on something, either with regards to what conservatives think, or wit regards to what nations have had the highest standard of living over the last half-century. mpg pretty thoroughly answered this point.

ocean515 said:

Should be crashing and burning? Let the economic realities speak for themselves. It's really easy to create a socialist nirvana when other peoples money is flowing in. When it doesn't flow in, then what. That is why, just like in California, the whole ideology and agenda is unsustainable.

Tell me about the history of all these great countries your so enamored with over the last 100 years. How long have there economic systems been in place? How many have changed, over and over.

Sorry, this rainbow and unicorns deal you're pushing will never last in the long term. It never has, not ever.

End of story.

Click to expand...

"When other peoples' money is flowing in". Ah. So it's only tourism that's holding California together? I doubt it.

Here's some questions to ask yourself: where does all the money come from? Does it all *poof* into existence where it wasn't before? Does it disappear into the ether as well? Is there some kind of rule that "for every dollar that is created, one dollar must be destroyed"? Or "value is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form"?

1. sometimes, but mostly no.
2. sometimes, but very rarely.
3. no.
4. no.

The key question, though, is "If the ebb and flow of money is a zero-sum game, how can our stock market possibly continue to grow?" The answer is of course NO, the ebb and flow of money is not a zero-sum game, and that is why California does not "depend on other peoples' money flowing in."

The best way to eliminate poverty is to create incentive's for businesses to produce more higher paying jobs and improve the middle class status.

Glen Contrarian said:

"When other peoples' money is flowing in". Ah. So it's only tourism that's holding California together? I doubt it.

Here's some questions to ask yourself: where does all the money come from? Does it all *poof* into existence where it wasn't before? Does it disappear into the ether as well? Is there some kind of rule that "for every dollar that is created, one dollar must be destroyed"? Or "value is neither created nor destroyed, but only changes form"?

1. sometimes, but mostly no.
2. sometimes, but very rarely.
3. no.
4. no.

The key question, though, is "If the ebb and flow of money is a zero-sum game, how can our stock market possibly continue to grow?" The answer is of course NO, the ebb and flow of money is not a zero-sum game, and that is why California does not "depend on other peoples' money flowing in."

Click to expand...

I have not idea what you're attempting to suggest. None of it makes sense, none of it follows what I posted, and I'm not really interested in trying to sort it out. Thanks for the post though.

cpwill said:

:raises eyebrow: I think you are severely confused on something, either with regards to what conservatives think, or wit regards to what nations have had the highest standard of living over the last half-century. mpg pretty thoroughly answered this point.

Click to expand...

Okay, then, edjimicate me. What nations have had the highest standards of living over the past half century, and what governmental systems and philosophies do those nations generally have in common?

ocean515 said:

I have not idea what you're attempting to suggest. None of it makes sense, none of it follows what I posted, and I'm not really interested in trying to sort it out. Thanks for the post though.

Click to expand...

You said California's economy is unsustainable unless there's other peoples' money flowing in...and I'm asking you where does that money come from? Why does the money keep flowing in to California? And when you answer, please bear in mind that blue states like California generally pay out more in federal taxes than they pay in, while red states generally receive more in federal funding than they pay out.

Glen Contrarian said:

You said California's economy is unsustainable unless there's other peoples' money flowing in...and I'm asking you where does that money come from? Why does the money keep flowing in to California? And when you answer, please bear in mind that blue states like California generally pay out more in federal taxes than they pay in, while red states generally receive more in federal funding than they pay out.

Click to expand...

Oh geeze, the red state, blue state lie. How many times has that been explained? I know, it's a critical issue to overlook obvious reasons for disparities in who pays out, and who pays in. Such a lame argument.

Fact, California has structured is tax system to burden high income earners more than any other state. The most recent tax increase that Progressives pushed through placed the highest burden for paying for the government on the rich.

Here is the problem with this approach. The Progressives here have managed to place California at the top of the list with the highest Supplemental Poverty Rate in the nation. The money to pay for all this comes primarily from the rich. So in order to maintain this Progressive society approach, the rich need to stay rich, and get richer.

Unfortunately, the Progressives also want to punish the rich, and do things to reduce this income disparity. So how is a state so very dependent on the rich, going to stay economically viable, if their focus is the punish the rich, and the businesses many of the rich own?

Again, as evidenced by California's economic results, and the massive increase in poverty California Progressives have managed to create, the trajectory is unsustainable. Cities have filed for bankruptcy as a result of these agenda's.

As to where the money comes from, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to infer, and have no real interest in learning what imaginary ideas you have to explain your point on it.

ocean515 said:

Oh geeze, the red state, blue state lie. How many times has that been explained? I know, it's a critical issue to overlook obvious reasons for disparities in who pays out, and who pays in. Such a lame argument.

Fact, California has structured is tax system to burden high income earners more than any other state. The most recent tax increase that Progressives pushed through placed the highest burden for paying for the government on the rich.

Here is the problem with this approach. The Progressives here have managed to place California at the top of the list with the highest Supplemental Poverty Rate in the nation. The money to pay for all this comes primarily from the rich. So in order to maintain this Progressive society approach, the rich need to stay rich, and get richer.

Unfortunately, the Progressives also want to punish the rich, and do things to reduce this income disparity. So how is a state so very dependent on the rich, going to stay economically viable, if their focus is the punish the rich, and the businesses many of the rich own?

Again, as evidenced by California's economic results, and the massive increase in poverty California Progressives have managed to create, the trajectory is unsustainable. Cities have filed for bankruptcy as a result of these agenda's.

As to where the money comes from, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to infer, and have no real interest in learning what imaginary ideas you have to explain your point on it.

Click to expand...

Have you heard about this upcoming cap and trade gas tax starting next jan? How on earth do we have such proximity to oil and refineries and yet its somehow cheaper to refine and then truck to nevada or arizona-because of our taxes and regulations.

The left does not care if anything is unsustainable, they would just as soon crash this nation into ruin, because they think they'd like what came after.

US Conservative said:

Have you heard about this upcoming cap and trade gas tax starting next jan? How on earth do we have such proximity to oil and refineries and yet its somehow cheaper to refine and then truck to nevada or arizona-because of our taxes and regulations.

The left does not care if anything is unsustainable, they would just as soon crash this nation into ruin, because they think they'd like what came after.

Click to expand...

I'm very much aware of the environmental regs the legislature has forced citizens and businesses in California to contend with.

Cap and Trade was authorized by AB32, which passed in 2006. The precursor to AB32 was AB1493, which the Democrats passed in 2002, at night, on a Saturday, which made California the first government in the World to identify exhaled breath as a greenhouse gas.

The evil of 1493 was that it came about after the public put a stop to another bill (AB1058) calling for the same definition and regulatory power to the CARB. Rather than listen to the people, the Progressives gutted another bill, slipped in the contents of the tabled bill the public didn't want, and passed it anyway.

Read this for an accounting of AB1493/1058 and how Progressives treat the state.

As I have said before, go and work at McDonald's.

U.S. poverty line for 2014 is (in the lower 48 states) is $11,670/yr..

2000 hours times $7.25/hr. equals $14,500/yr..

You want to stay out of poverty, just flip burgers and voila...you are out of poverty.

http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/14poverty.cfm

What about families you say?

If both parents flip burgers, that is $29,000/yr. total income.

The lower 48 states poverty line for a family of five is $27,910.

The solution to poverty is...



or

Glen Contrarian said:

AGAIN, why are the nations that have had the highest standards of living for the past half century the SAME ones whose economies, according to conservative economic dogma, should be crashing and burning?

You haven't answered this. You've claimed it was answered, but it never was, it never has been, not by you, not by anyone else. I remember specifically the excuses that some more serious conservatives have tried, but their excuses were shot down in every case. You yourself have not even ventured a guess, but are simply claiming it has been answered when it has not been answered at all.

Click to expand...

which countries are you referring to with their high standards of living?

fedup said:

Karl Marx is highly propagandized. I didn't agree with all of his ideas, but he laid out some very legitimate, intelligent arguments for a system he supposed would end or reduce poverty and human suffering. There were some good ideas, there were some bad ideas, but he is nowhere near the villain that the Right would like to make him out to be.

I'm aware of how America approaches "property", however I simply disagree with it. I don't think land can be legitimately owned in the sense that you can own an apple or a computer. I am not against possession or homesteading of land. People would still own houses, farm/maintain land, and enjoy a little piece of the world. However claiming that land is "property" has some very disastrous environmental and social consequences. It's important that we understand and recognize that the Earth is owned by everyone.

Click to expand...

The land has value that is increased by its assets of natural resources or fertility, access to water, location, aesthetic beauty, etc. And if one can buy or sell rights to occupy that land and transfer such rights to their heirs or others, then land is property. Property is whatever of material or potential value that we hold or control. You simply cannot remove land from that equation.

To own land is not necessary for prosperity, however. At some point after Constantine decreed favored status for Christianity in the Roman Empire, it would be centuries that Jews, for instance, were forbidden to own land. Which is why Jewish families went into other trades that didn't require ownership of lands--shipping, banking, etc.--but they prospered just the same. Usually more than their non-Jewish counterparts. Often all that is required for the poor to become prosperous as a) opportunity to ability to act b) the ability to see what needs/markets exist and c) the work ethic and desire to do what they need to do in order to capitalize on those needs/markets.

Glen Contrarian said:

Okay, then, edjimicate me. What nations have had the highest standards of living over the past half century, and what governmental systems and philosophies do those nations generally have in common?

Click to expand...

Those who have liberalized their economies. Liberalized in the classic sense that economists use, rather than in the American political sense, in which it denotes greater central direction.

To eliminate poverty in the world?

Free market economies
no future government pensions for those presently under 30 (or even 35 or 40).
government shelters primarily replace welfare (except for the disabled)
free basic healthcare for everyone that needs/wants it (full healthcare for children/disabled)
cut world military spending by at least 1/2
militaries go to large reserve-small full time armies
zero/minimal government intervention in economies
eliminate corporate taxes
eliminate all central banks
governments run balanced budgets
taxation policies that encourage charitible contributions
legalize recreational drugs
legalize euthanasia


No doubt there is something on this list that almost everyone likes and almost everyone hates...which must mean it is a good solution.

cpwill said:

Those who have liberalized their economies. Liberalized in the classic sense that economists use, rather than in the American political sense, in which it denotes greater central direction.

Click to expand...

Its an ironic name for the left to have taken over.

cpwill said:

Those who have liberalized their economies. Liberalized in the classic sense that economists use, rather than in the American political sense, in which it denotes greater central direction.

Click to expand...

So...which economies are more heavily regulated, and which are not?

gdgyva said:

which countries are you referring to with their high standards of living?

Click to expand...

All - repeat, all - the first-world democracies...all of which are socialized democracies, including America.

ocean515 said:

Oh geeze, the red state, blue state lie. How many times has that been explained?

Click to expand...

None, as far as I've seen - of course, I don't see all your posts - maybe you have and I simply didn't see it. If you can explain why it is that the blue states generally pay out more federal taxes than they receive, and why the red states generally receive more in federal funding than they pay out, please, enlighten me!

And while you're at it, please explain why red states generally:

- have higher divorce rates
- have higher teenage pregnancy rates
- have lower educational attainment rates
- have lower life expectancy rates
- have higher poverty rates

Yes, I can back up each of these. I look forward to your reply.

I know, it's a critical issue to overlook obvious reasons for disparities in who pays out, and who pays in. Such a lame argument.

Click to expand...

It is? What, exactly, are the 'obvious reasons'?

Fact, California has structured is tax system to burden high income earners more than any other state. The most recent tax increase that Progressives pushed through placed the highest burden for paying for the government on the rich.

Click to expand...

Y'know, California's taxes aren't much higher than here in Washington...yet most of the major businesses here in Washington (Microsoft, Amazon, Boeing, et al) don't seem to be fleeing, and the richest man in the world (Bill Gates) certainly isn't running away from Washington state. Come to think of it, the most recent CEO of Microsoft (Steve Ballmer) just invested 2B in California when he bought the Clippers.

Here is the problem with this approach. The Progressives here have managed to place California at the top of the list with the highest Supplemental Poverty Rate in the nation. The money to pay for all this comes primarily from the rich. So in order to maintain this Progressive society approach, the rich need to stay rich, and get richer.

Click to expand...

Please define "supplemental poverty rate"...because before I reply, I want to make sure we're talking about the same thing. I say that because under the 'supplemental poverty rate', California's poverty rate is 23.8%...whereas under the traditional measure of the poverty rate, it's 13.2%. And regardless of which metric you use, the significant majority of states with the highest poverty rates are RED states.

Unfortunately, the Progressives also want to punish the rich, and do things to reduce this income disparity. So how is a state so very dependent on the rich, going to stay economically viable, if their focus is the punish the rich, and the businesses many of the rich own?

Click to expand...

Perhaps the same way that the financial capital of the world - New York City - has remained as such since at least WWII. You see, it's not just California that has high taxes - it's also New York, and there's been scads of rich people in both states for longer than either one of us has been alive. Sure, you might find a few here or there that do leave because of taxes...but most don't. Instead, they stay...and they continue to MAKE money in both states...because if the rich didn't continue to make money as they have done so for generations, they wouldn't stay, now would they?

Again, as evidenced by California's economic results, and the massive increase in poverty California Progressives have managed to create, the trajectory is unsustainable. Cities have filed for bankruptcy as a result of these agenda's.

Click to expand...

Again, you say California's economy is going to crash and burn...and I say it won't. You and I will be on DP for a some time to come, and here's a prediction: five years from now, CA's economy will still be improving, and you'll still claim it isn't, that it's still about to crash and burn.

As to where the money comes from, I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to infer, and have no real interest in learning what imaginary ideas you have to explain your point on it.

Click to expand...

Hey - you're the one who's claiming that the only thing that's holding up CA's economy is "other peoples' money"...whereas in reality, California receives about 78 cents in federal funding for every dollar it pays out in federal taxes. In fact, if you'll check the same reference, you'll find that almost all red states receive more in federal funding than they pay out in federal taxes...which means that we in blue states are essentially paying to help red state economies stay afloat.