2 ms·
He's all for capitalism...but he gets that it's not going to take care of everybody. The financial incentives to take care of the disadvantaged just aren't ther
by mynameishere 19y ago
He's all for capitalism...but he gets that it's not going to take care of everybody. The financial incentives to take care of the disadvantaged just aren't there.
Maybe something was lost in the translation from reportee to reporter, but capitalism doesn't "take care" of anybody. And the incentives to "take care" [ie subsidize] the disadvantaged are never going to be there. This is a point of mathematical certainty.
The incentives are of a strictly different type--for instance, the incentive of an evil old billionaire trying to buy his way into heaven.
- Darmani 19y agoThe standard of living has increased seven-fold in the past century. As a result, the definition of "poverty" is no longer homeless people starving to death, but a family living in a small house who own a car, TV set, and other "luxuries." Yeah, I think capitalism has done a lot to "take care" of people. And actually, the incentives to "subsidize" the disadvantage have always been there (why do middle-class atheists give to charity?), but that gets into sociobiology.
- mynameishere 19y agoI am defining "take care" as "subsidize". No, capitalism doesn't "take care" of anybody, and if it did, it wouldn't work.
- Darmani 19y agoI'd be very surprised if Bill was using the same definition. It's usually not a good idea to mix different definitions of a word.
- mynameishere 19y agoI know. To quote myself: Maybe something was lost in the translation from reportee [ie Bill] to reporter
- ajju 19y agoThat's the definition of poverty in the U.S. For the poor in Asia and Africa poverty still means not getting two square meals a day and sometimes starving to death.
- Darmani 19y agoYes, of course. Uncoincidentally, most of Asia and Africa are not very capitalistic