Total topics: 3
I am a huge supporter of food banks (I agree with the left-wing that in the ideal endgame they aren't needed but I am a fan of them for now in all societies that need them) and am curious about the core opposing stance that right-wingers have to everything from welfare through to charities like food banks.
If somebody is so poor they can't eat, they can't have the energy to do a good job at work, decreasing their productivity towards the nation's economy.
This means even a sheer sociopath should not mind people sparing some food and sanitary products to food-bank style charities to help out those with their backs against the wall, in particular in these times where even a commute can wreck their wealth.
This 'they are lazy' concept is bullshit. The vast majority of the severely poor are not lazy, they are perhaps ill-informed on money management that are now doomed due to that but they need help at times to even cope and have breathing room to feed themselves and/or families.
I ask to you, in your ideal solution to poverty without moving towards social democratic benefits, welfare etc how does the society eliminate brutally severe poverty where going severely hungry and without basic sanitary products is necessary for the poor to be able to afford their bills?
Food banks are supposed to cover when the welfare system is falling short on certain families, this question is about both and why the right-wing oppose them.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
Let's try to have a respectful discussion about this problem in America.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Politics
The origin of poverty stems from the fact that people have incompatible ideologies. There are two types of people in the world. Those that wait and those that don't and those that earn wealth and those that don't. The fractional reserve system was created in 1668 by greedy bankers.
How is the fractional reserve unethical one might ask?
Originally, the markets of the world had a gold standard and resource value resembled the scarcity of supplies in the markets.
The banks invented money without wealth through the fractional reserve system. That is counterfeit by definition.
Because credit goes to capital investment and consumer purchases, this means that a finite resource pool is used to initiate a chain of resource transactions for future projects, homes and consumer purchases. Supply is limited though so inflation increases.
Wealth perpetuates new wealth creation. A finite number of resources can create more resources in the future in a capitalistic environment that places emphasis on the immediate consumer products that people want.
Credit Creation without wealth distributes resources unevenly to many projects that reveal themselves as bad investments in the future.
Keynesian Economics is flawed because it bankrupts people's incomes and money which isn't wealth. These Bankers are greedy and think that they do a service to society when they invest into projects, however, when the economy is booming and everyone has money, the most damage is done because banks keep lowering standards of credit and the economy comes over-heated with employment and activity that is utterly useless.
A depression or a recession then develops a country and capitalism redirects the mismanagement of resources into projects that immediately satisfy the consumer and not the whims of the robber barons that like counterfeiting money.
Created:
Updated:
Category:
Economics