Prosperity

In the face of amazing prosperity, we hear that minorities and such are worse off than ever before. Since the professional worriers cannot stand on absolutes, they retreat to the relative differences of “inequality”. But what if the typical measurements of inequality are also caught up in prosperity? As even the poorest of American poor tend to live better than the middle class of a hundred years ago or even in the majority of the world today, it seems incongruous that American poor have it so bad. Is inequality really so out of hand that this is unbearable? Perhaps the problem is one of measurement.
[mantra-pullquote align=”left|center|right” textalign=”left|center|right” width=”33%”]Are current measures of inequality based on things which mask the effects of prosperity?[/mantra-pullquote] Are current measures of inequality based on things which mask the effects of prosperity? For example, income may be one way to sort people, but a person who receives income from work seems richer than one who receives government services directly. But the working person is giving up (say) eight hours every day, which the welfare mooch is sitting at home, awash in the only real wealth — leisure. This is made possible by prosperity, one more effect of the supposed “failure of capitalism”.
I’ll have to look at this in more detail, but for now, it’s a thought.

Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Prosperity

  1. AvatarNanda Panjandrum says:

    Ahoy, Shipmate…You’re not referring to the genuinely vulnerable here, right? How do we make this whole thing more locally-controlled/fiscally sound?

    Should we have this type of thing at all?

  2. AdministratorAdministrator says:

    Greetings! I am of course speaking in broad terms. I support a societal system which taakes care of those who for one reason or another cannot take care themselves to some reasonable level. The problem is that far too much is deemed “inability”, such as fat people who are “too depressed to work” because they’re fat and unemployed because they’re depressed. In the UK, that is now a “disability”.
    We should have this sort of thing — it should be run by grown-ups.

  3. AvatarDevereaux says:

    The problem with this is that it’s a bit like pornography – you may not be able to define it, but you certainly know it when you see it.

    There are, of course, several methods of changing some of this.

    (1) You could limit Public Aid to no more than 6 months out of any 4 years.

    (2) You could make any who are ON PA to work for the government – rather like the WPA. No one thought the WPA was a good deal, but it did manage to accomplish a number of things.

    (3) You could remove the vote from anyone who is on Public Aid. No sense having them vote for bigger handouts (the usual downfall of every democracy).

    (4) You could outlaw all federal aid. Local governments could decide whether to set up aid programs or not. Local philanthropists could set up organizations for aid. But NO AID except is real disability should be without some local involvement. And some local business. (So the local “soup kitchen” doesn’t put local businesses OUT of business since they can get food for free.)

    (5) You could limit the federal power by limiting what it can do to what it actually has as enumerated powers. So the EPA could ONLY rule on things that are NATIONAL in scope. Like air.

    (6) You could start counting all the “free” things the “poor” get to see if they really ARE poor. Be surprised at what all the “poor” own and have. (Quite obviously from all the anti-white hate comments, they have computers to visit social media with.)

  4. AvatarDevereaux says:

    And if we’re trying to generate prosperity, we could eliminate ALL government unions, AND make any civilian unions local to the specific plant. Unions currently have a monopoly – on labour – in many states. No one else has that luxury.

    You could make ALL states “Right To Work” – change the dynamic a bit.

    You could make it illegal for a union to collect dues through any other means EXCEPT direct payment by the union member to the union.

Leave a Reply