This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Are there many Northerners at London unis
- Anyone have any idea about the rough TMUA grade needed to get into Imperial maths?
- Asking and caring about someone’s bodycount is weird.
- Keep watching gay porn
- uni loan so small
- law
- the guy i'm seeing is still talking to his one night stand
- UCL may be high in the rankings but this means nothing in practice.
- Guy who doesn't come out of his room
- Imperial vs Cambridge
- Help! EPQ for competitive Oxbridge/top uni application?
- which country should I live and why?
- Teesside mpharm course cancelled
- 3rd Year No Work Experience
- Is PPE more prestigious than Political Economy at KCL?
- Can med unis see my attendance on ucas!?!?
- oxbridge and alevels for med sch
- A Christmas Carol Essay
- Move to LSE vs Stay at Leeds
- Is A career good in Investment banking ?
I really don't care about poor people.
Is there anything wrong with my position?
Discuss.
Discuss.
Scroll to see replies
Reply 1
why SHOULD you care about poor people?
They are poor for a reason, and if they were intelligent and hard working enough to not be poor, in the long run they wont be.
They are poor for a reason, and if they were intelligent and hard working enough to not be poor, in the long run they wont be.
Reply 2
Tonight Matthew
Is there anything wrong with my position?
No.
Theres certainly nothing right with it either, though.
Reply 3
bikerx23
why SHOULD you care about poor people?
They are poor for a reason, and if they were intelligent and hard working enough to not be poor, in the long run they wont be.
They are poor for a reason, and if they were intelligent and hard working enough to not be poor, in the long run they wont be.
Typical tory boy attitude
Yes we and you should care
a society should be judged by the way it cares for its loweliest members
And lets face it poverty is a creation by us, people in many places are kept down and forced to be poor by the rich and capatilism
Reply 4
ali567149
Typical tory boy attitude
you know NOTHING about me
And lets face it poverty is a creation by us, people in many places are kept down and forced to be poor by the rich and capatilism
the whole point of capitalism is that people who are willing to work will do well, therefore there is no excuse for being poor in the traditional sense.
Reply 5
bikerx23
the whole point of capitalism is that people who are willing to work will do well, therefore there is no excuse for being poor in the traditional sense.
the whole point of capitalism is that people who are willing to work will do well, therefore there is no excuse for being poor in the traditional sense.
Capitalism is not a meritocracy.
As for caring about the poor - this is far too complex to be answered to any satisfaction on a web bulletin board and the time just isn't there.
In short, yes. The underlying reason is 'insurance' - but not the sort you are immediately thinking of.
...
No, it really isn't that sort.
Reply 6
bikerx23
the whole point of capitalism is that people who are willing to work will do well
the whole point of capitalism is that people who are willing to work will do well
Also a point requisit of capatilism is to have a expendable labour market with people out of employment and down for the system to work there for creating a poverty cycle
Reply 7
ali567149
Also a point requisit of capatilism is to have a expendable labour market with people out of employment and down for the system to work there for creating a poverty cycle
Whatever that means, what does that have to do with whether or not someone should care about the poor?
Reply 8
without the poor there wouldn't be any rich, and therefore nothing for people to aspire too.
Reply 9
bikerx23
without the poor there wouldn't be any rich, and therefore nothing for people to aspire too.
Meh, that assumes utility is solely derived from relative wealth. It obviously isn't.
Reply 10
bikerx23
why SHOULD you care about poor people?
They are poor for a reason, and if they were intelligent and hard working enough to not be poor, in the long run they wont be.
They are poor for a reason, and if they were intelligent and hard working enough to not be poor, in the long run they wont be.
Hmm, I agree with this in most cases.
It is important that we have a system that makes this approach workable though, and provides good equality of opportunity.
Reply 11
President_Ben
Meh, that assumes utility is solely derived from relative wealth. It obviously isn't.
No - it is based on the fact that wealth is relative to the populus.
I agree BK - sadly there are some cases where those with potential who are willing to work hard are not given the opportunity to do so - AT82 may be a fair example of this as of present (although, if you are aware, he has delved into private enterprise to cure this)
But, in the majority of cases I have seen, there are the obvious and expexted causes for their poverty.
Reply 12
Tonight Matthew
Is there anything wrong with my position?
Discuss.
Discuss.
Well, theoretically if you ever lose your job and have to go on Jobseekers, it would be a bit depressing to actually stop caring about yourself.
*Jaded
Reply 13
People aspire to maximise utility.
If you assume levelling wealth will stop them maximising their utility, you have assumed that difference in wealth versus others is the cause of utility maximisation.
Which it is not.
Wealth is not just relative to the population at that time. The return of wealth also relates to your previous level of personal wealth (in any model that tries to be comprehensive).
I think you'd struggle to sensibly assume that the utility function of personal wealth with respect to time is homgeneous of degree zero.
There is absolute and relative poverty. I see what you're getting at - but it isn't a complete model.
If you assume levelling wealth will stop them maximising their utility, you have assumed that difference in wealth versus others is the cause of utility maximisation.
Which it is not.
Wealth is not just relative to the population at that time. The return of wealth also relates to your previous level of personal wealth (in any model that tries to be comprehensive).
I think you'd struggle to sensibly assume that the utility function of personal wealth with respect to time is homgeneous of degree zero.
There is absolute and relative poverty. I see what you're getting at - but it isn't a complete model.
Reply 14
yea - whatever that economic crap you're talking about...the main motivation for the majority of the workforce is money, since the majority do not have what they consider to be job satisfaction.
Reply 15
bikerx23
yea - whatever that economic crap you're talking about...the main motivation for the majority of the workforce is money, since the majority do not have what they consider to be job satisfaction.
See, this is what happens when you get a geologist trying to talk about utility maximisation and preferences
Reply 16
16
bikerx23
QUOTE]
Who does?
Reply 17
bikerx23
you know NOTHING about me
the whole point of capitalism is that people who are willing to work will do well, therefore there is no excuse for being poor in the traditional sense.
the whole point of capitalism is that people who are willing to work will do well, therefore there is no excuse for being poor in the traditional sense.
you've made a mistake.
The whole point of capitalism is to make as much money as they can by exploiting the poor. Therefore being the prime cause of the poor staying poor.
You must have your wires crossed somewhere
Reply 18
In a global sense you should care about the poor. The west can only remain rich by keeping the rest of the world poor... simple really.
We exploit their labout and raw materials turn them into shoes and televisions and sell them at extortionate prices back to them...
We exploit their labout and raw materials turn them into shoes and televisions and sell them at extortionate prices back to them...
Reply 19
12
Indus1986
In a global sense you should care about the poor. The west can only remain rich by keeping the rest of the world poor... simple really.
Absolute nonsense. Global capitalism has taken 400 million out of poverty since 1981, reduced infant mortality, actually improves equality in relation to the least free societies and all this faster in developing societies than the most rich.
In the last 30 years chronic hunger has been halved, and so has the extent of child labour. Since 1950 illiteracy has been reduced from 70 to 23 percent and infant mortality has been reduced by two-thirds.
I recommend, "In Defence of Global Capitalism" by Johan Norberg.
--------------
El Scotto
you've made a mistake.
The whole point of capitalism is to make as much money as they can by exploiting the poor. Therefore being the prime cause of the poor staying poor.
You must have your wires crossed somewhere
you've made a mistake.
The whole point of capitalism is to make as much money as they can by exploiting the poor. Therefore being the prime cause of the poor staying poor.
You must have your wires crossed somewhere
Perhaps then you can explain why the poor are better off with greater economic freedom than without?
Related discussions
- Are there many Northerners at London unis
- Anyone have any idea about the rough TMUA grade needed to get into Imperial maths?
- Asking and caring about someone’s bodycount is weird.
- Keep watching gay porn
- uni loan so small
- law
- the guy i'm seeing is still talking to his one night stand
- UCL may be high in the rankings but this means nothing in practice.
- Guy who doesn't come out of his room
- Imperial vs Cambridge
- Help! EPQ for competitive Oxbridge/top uni application?
- which country should I live and why?
- Teesside mpharm course cancelled
- 3rd Year No Work Experience
- Is PPE more prestigious than Political Economy at KCL?
- Can med unis see my attendance on ucas!?!?
- oxbridge and alevels for med sch
- A Christmas Carol Essay
- Move to LSE vs Stay at Leeds
- Is A career good in Investment banking ?
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Bank of England cuts interest rates to lowest level at 4.5%Last reply 6 days ago
[Official] US announces new tariffs on most countriesLast reply 1 month ago
Woman who hired 'man with van' on Facebook fined £2kLast reply 1 month ago
Pub forced to pay family £75,000 after accusing them of dine and dash
