NationStates Jolt Archive

Hi all,

How about it? Who will consider supporting the proposal
"Feed the Poor"? Who will not be dissuaded by some
peoples' misguided capitalistic "let them get jobs"?
Who will stand up for those in the world who simply
cannot get a job that will really take them out of
the pain of poverty. There are countries out there
who are not able to, or refuse to do anything that will
help their citizens gain a reasonable income. Talking
politics from on high will never help them. We need to
ensure that they will not die from hunger. It's as simple
as that. And then, once we agree to feed the poor, we can
make other resolutions to ban, condemn, whatever, those
countries whose govs force their own citizens into such
a dire situation.

Feed the Poor!

Sponsored by: The Rebels

The poor got where they are because of their own decisions. Private charity can help them. Our government offers a more than generous welfare for those currently.

The poor are poor because they decided to be?
There are no poor people in African countries,
for example, because there's simply not enough
development going on? And how about drought,
climate, war-torn areas, local political infighting?

Everyone can have food if they simply want it?

The Rebels

The poor are poor because they decided to be?
There are no poor people in African countries,
for example, because there's simply not enough
development going on? And how about drought,
climate, war-torn areas, local political infighting?

Everyone can have food if they simply want it?

The Rebels

I have approved your proposal.. :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

Thanks.

I really think this is a cause we can all agree on.

The Rebels

It is not the job of the government to feed everyone. We currently focus on economic stimuli which will help create jobs. Therefore, we help our citizens help themselves.

Regarding the "let them get jobs" issue, it is a known fact that unemployment is both UNAVOIDABLE and in fact DESIRED under a capitalist system. If there is no unemployment, then there will quickly be immense pressure to drive wages up until employers refuse to hire more workers, which results in the re-introduction of unemployment. Thus, any attempt to eradicate unemployment will automatically self-destruct because employers will reduce hiring if allowed to do so, or they will go bankrupt if forced to hire more employees than is profitable--either one results in more people out of work.

Now, if you will allow me to put on a liberal Keynesian hat for a moment, I will say that it is beneficial to individual employers for unemployment to be high because high unemployment drives wages downward, which results in higher profits. Thus, if allowed to do so, individual employers will want to keep unemployment as high as possible without totally discouraging workers from seeking jobs.

On the other hand, it is detrimental to the economy as a whole to have a large number of workers producing nothing at all. The result is that individual employers are keeping their personnel costs to a minimum, but global output is reduced. Such a situation was seen during the Great Depression, in which the vicious cycle of job-cutting reached the point that the consumer base shrank from lack of income.

As Keynes put it, then, the solution is to "force" job creation. Essentially, instead of giving people a "free handout" through welfare, make them work for it instead. In other words, people without private-sector jobs should be able to seek employment with the government (at slightly below the wage rate paid by the private sector--say 20% lower). This is better for the government than just paying welfare because (1) it gives the government access to labor at a cheaper rate than contracting with corporations, and (2) it allows the otherwise-unemployed to be productive.

Regarding the "let them get jobs" issue, it is a known fact that unemployment is both UNAVOIDABLE and in fact DESIRED under a capitalist system. If there is no unemployment, then there will quickly be immense pressure to drive wages up until employers refuse to hire more workers, which results in the re-introduction of unemployment. Thus, any attempt to eradicate unemployment will automatically self-destruct because employers will reduce hiring if allowed to do so, or they will go bankrupt if forced to hire more employees than is profitable--either one results in more people out of work.

Now, if you will allow me to put on a liberal Keynesian hat for a moment, I will say that it is beneficial to individual employers for unemployment to be high because high unemployment drives wages downward, which results in higher profits. Thus, if allowed to do so, individual employers will want to keep unemployment as high as possible without totally discouraging workers from seeking jobs.

On the other hand, it is detrimental to the economy as a whole to have a large number of workers producing nothing at all. The result is that individual employers are keeping their personnel costs to a minimum, but global output is reduced. Such a situation was seen during the Great Depression, in which the vicious cycle of job-cutting reached the point that the consumer base shrank from lack of income.

As Keynes put it, then, the solution is to "force" job creation. Essentially, instead of giving people a "free handout" through welfare, make them work for it instead. In other words, people without private-sector jobs should be able to seek employment with the government (at slightly below the wage rate paid by the private sector--say 20% lower). This is better for the government than just paying welfare because (1) it gives the government access to labor at a cheaper rate than contracting with corporations, and (2) it allows the otherwise-unemployed to be productive.

Hi all,

How about it? Who will consider supporting the proposal
"Feed the Poor"? Who will not be dissuaded by some
peoples' misguided capitalistic "let them get jobs"?
Who will stand up for those in the world who simply
cannot get a job that will really take them out of
the pain of poverty. There are countries out there
who are not able to, or refuse to do anything that will
help their citizens gain a reasonable income. Talking
politics from on high will never help them. We need to
ensure that they will not die from hunger. It's as simple
as that. And then, once we agree to feed the poor, we can
make other resolutions to ban, condemn, whatever, those
countries whose govs force their own citizens into such
a dire situation.


Explain why, if someone else decides that he wants to live, I am responsible for him?

Hi all,

How about it? Who will consider supporting the proposal
"Feed the Poor"? Who will not be dissuaded by some
peoples' misguided capitalistic "let them get jobs"?
Who will stand up for those in the world who simply
cannot get a job that will really take them out of
the pain of poverty. There are countries out there
who are not able to, or refuse to do anything that will
help their citizens gain a reasonable income. Talking
politics from on high will never help them. We need to
ensure that they will not die from hunger. It's as simple
as that. And then, once we agree to feed the poor, we can
make other resolutions to ban, condemn, whatever, those
countries whose govs force their own citizens into such
a dire situation.


Explain why, if someone else decides that he wants to live, I am responsible for him?

Because otherwise you are an amoral scumbag. :p

*giggle*

If you mean by that that's it's everyone's own decision
to live in poverty or not, then I obviously can't accept
that. How about it's everyone's own business if he/she
want to kill themselves as well? And if you'll say "right,
that's their business as well, then what if that person
was your own relative? What if the poor person was
your own mother and you couldn't give her any money
to help her? Wouldn't you be glad the government
helps her out and provides for her?

The Rebels

The warmth and kindness is just over whelming here. Heaven forbid any one here with their warmth to other human beings should ever find themselves in this situation. Let's just hope if you do, the people you might hope will help you will not have the same attitude! :idea:

Peace,
Stephanie.

If you mean by that that's it's everyone's own decision
to live in poverty or not, then I obviously can't accept
that. How about it's everyone's own business if he/she
want to kill themselves as well? And if you'll say "right,
that's their business as well, then what if that person
was your own relative?
Then I might not like it, and I might try to convince the person otherwise, but it ultimately is his own decision, and no one should use force to prevent him from doing so (unless he planned to take others down with him, of course).
What if the poor person was
your own mother and you couldn't give her any money
to help her? Wouldn't you be glad the government
helps her out and provides for her?

No. The fact that I care about my mother does not give me the right to force others to take care of her.

The warmth and kindness is just over whelming here. Heaven forbid any one here with their warmth to other human beings should ever find themselves in this situation. Let's just hope if you do, the people you might hope will help you will not have the same attitude! :idea:


Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

My problem does not lie with helping people. It lies with forcing others, at the point of a gun, to help people whether they want to or not.

The warmth and kindness is just over whelming here. Heaven forbid any one here with their warmth to other human beings should ever find themselves in this situation. Let's just hope if you do, the people you might hope will help you will not have the same attitude! :idea:


Why is this such a difficult concept to understand?

My problem does not lie with helping people. It lies with forcing others, at the point of a gun, to help people whether they want to or not.

Understood.. :)

Peace,
Stephanie.

I'll believe it when I see it...

I'll believe it when I see it...

?? You'll believe what when you see it?

Peace,
Stephanie.

Surely, you're not saying we have the resources to save the poor from their lot? There will be poor allways, pathetically struggling. Despite all the good things that we, the more prosperous contries, have got, we can not feed every starving family in the world, and we can not bring our "extravagant projects" to a complete halt for all eternity. We must, indeed, spend funding on helping poor nations -- on helping them develop into more prosperous economies, which is the only way of really decreasing the number of poor people in the world, and the only way to ensure that all those who *are* poor have access to welfare. Welfare, within our nation, yes. Feeding all the poor in the world, no. Helping other nations develop into economies that can support welfare and employ more of their citizenry in well-paying jobs, yes. Sending billions of pieces of ten to other nations to buy bread, no. Give a man a fish, he will eat for a day. Teach him to fish, and he will eat for the rest of his life.

Office of the Governor

As long as you give us enough money, we'll stand up for anything you want.