5 ms·

> Could you explain why that is? Easy by the rest of my comment maybe I didn't illustrate it enough but a lot of people share ideas on how to fix it without tr

> Could you explain why that is? Easy by the rest of my comment maybe I didn't illustrate it enough but a lot of people share ideas on how to fix it without truly understand it. Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Now saying that once you're screwed you'll never be able to think 'normal' again... c'mon man.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
Jedd 9y ago
> As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Is that really how you interpreted TFA? I read it entirely opposite to that interpretation. It explained why helping those suffering scarcity is necessary and why society needs to revisit attitudes and mechanisms to do so.
- kraig911 9y ago
  I read the article and yes indeed got the opposite impression. That's what poverty does though.. makes you see the glass half empty perhaps as per the article implies.
tensor_rank_0 9y ago
> Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. how does giving up personal wealth fix poverty?
- kraig911 9y ago
  It's hard to get people out of poverty than enrich people before that happens. It's easier to bring the extremely wealthy down to a certain level to accommodate for those that don't have the ability to get unlimited tries. See perspective:: http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html Wealth and safety nets give families chances where those in poverty can't afford to take. "Move across the country and change jobs or risk dying of starvation with your family in the car because once you got there the job's gone" "Spend all your savings going to college at the expense of your kids when there are no jobs right now" "It'll cost hundreds of thousands for chemotherapy but on average patients with your diagnosis get 3 more years typically of life"... these are called risks. The wealthy get more rewards because they can afford more risks. Most who are in poverty are in poverty because they themselves or their family could not afford the risk. If those who are high lend a hand it could help immensely.
  - tensor_rank_0 9y ago
    you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer. > http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html riddled with fallacies and calculated to produce envy. totally irrelevant to our discussion.
    - tmnvix 9y ago
      > you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. That is a non sequitur.
      - tensor_rank_0 9y ago
        I don't understand what you mean.
        tmnvix 9y ago
        GP suggested that a redistribution of resources could allow the poorer section of society to engage in the type of risky behaviour that often results in financial success. You then assumed that this means depriving wealthier people of the ability to engage in that sort of behaviour. That isn't a logical consequence. You seem to be assuming that any redistribution will deprive wealthier people of these opportunities which is obviously not true. For instance, GP might be suggesting that only the wealthiest 1% should be required to make a sacrifice for the benefit of the poor.
    - jokoon 9y ago
      > and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer. It's about income distribution. It's true that the economy is not a cake you can split in several parts, so it's not a zero sum game, but I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less. And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance. And again, it's about the extremes, there is less need to touch the incomes of those in the middle. I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

Jedd 9y ago

> As per the link it basically says the same crap everyone says, the "Helping the homeless is hopeless" narrative. Is that really how you interpreted TFA? I read it entirely opposite to that interpretation. It explained why helping those suffering scarcity is necessary and why society needs to revisit attitudes and mechanisms to do so.

kraig911 9y ago
I read the article and yes indeed got the opposite impression. That's what poverty does though.. makes you see the glass half empty perhaps as per the article implies.

tensor_rank_0 9y ago

> Poverty is easy to fix. It's the giving up personal wealth to prevent it that's the hard part. how does giving up personal wealth fix poverty?

kraig911 9y ago
It's hard to get people out of poverty than enrich people before that happens. It's easier to bring the extremely wealthy down to a certain level to accommodate for those that don't have the ability to get unlimited tries. See perspective:: http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html Wealth and safety nets give families chances where those in poverty can't afford to take. "Move across the country and change jobs or risk dying of starvation with your family in the car because once you got there the job's gone" "Spend all your savings going to college at the expense of your kids when there are no jobs right now" "It'll cost hundreds of thousands for chemotherapy but on average patients with your diagnosis get 3 more years typically of life"... these are called risks. The wealthy get more rewards because they can afford more risks. Most who are in poverty are in poverty because they themselves or their family could not afford the risk. If those who are high lend a hand it could help immensely.
- tensor_rank_0 9y ago
  you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer. > http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html http://www.templetons.com/brad/billg.html riddled with fallacies and calculated to produce envy. totally irrelevant to our discussion.
  - tmnvix 9y ago
    > you listed a bunch of advantages of wealth that I dont think anyone would dispute. and you talk about taking that away. That is a non sequitur.
    - tensor_rank_0 9y ago
      I don't understand what you mean.
      - tmnvix 9y ago
        GP suggested that a redistribution of resources could allow the poorer section of society to engage in the type of risky behaviour that often results in financial success. You then assumed that this means depriving wealthier people of the ability to engage in that sort of behaviour. That isn't a logical consequence. You seem to be assuming that any redistribution will deprive wealthier people of these opportunities which is obviously not true. For instance, GP might be suggesting that only the wealthiest 1% should be required to make a sacrifice for the benefit of the poor.
  - jokoon 9y ago
    > and you talk about taking that away. how is this supposed to help people who are already impoverished? it seems like you want there to be more people in poverty, not fewer. It's about income distribution. It's true that the economy is not a cake you can split in several parts, so it's not a zero sum game, but I think that inequalities should be reduced, and that means taking from the ones who have, to give to those who have less. And if you take from the ones who have the most, you are not creating poor people, you are just improving the balance. And again, it's about the extremes, there is less need to touch the incomes of those in the middle. I don't understand how taking from the rich to give to the poor would be a bad thing.