Enfield boy
pfm Member
Homelessness, relying on foodbanks, some illnesses, pre-pay meters are examples of absolute poverty, but of course you know that. They could all be eradicated and it's a choice that they're not.
Which is another defeatist argument. Letting the best be the enemy of the good. Poverty is not a relative term, it is a noun. It describes the more extreme end of 'poor'. So even if, as you argue, you can't eradicate poverty (the logic in your argument is valid, even if misapplied) you can minimise its impact. You can reduce the number of people in grinding, hopeless poverty to zero, and improve the lot of the less well-off more generally. Thus you eliminate 'poverty' without eliminating the poor, because there will always, as you say, be those at the bottom of the heap. It's just that the bottom of the heap needn't be the godawful, hopeless, vicious spiral of decline it currently is.You can’t eradicate poverty when it’s a relative term. No matter what the definition, there will always be those at the bottom end of the spectrum who are ‘poor’.
This is a non argument. Being relatively poor and being in absolute poverty are very different things.You can’t eradicate poverty when it’s a relative term. No matter what the definition, there will always be those at the bottom end of the spectrum who are ‘poor’.
We are conditioned/brainwashed to believe TINA. I guess if the USA embraced MMT or even just Keynesian economics the world would rapidly become a different place, but it can't. The rich, including corporations with budgets bigger than most nations, pull all the strings. Politicians who espouse a different view anywhere in the world have to be discredited, nations that try to walk the walk find they are the victims of coups.
I‘ve been thinking about this and istm that it isn’t question of understanding economic theories or the electorate embracing one thing or another, it is a moral question.The problem is, the general public doesn’t seem to be able to get its head round any economic ideas outside the ‘household budget’ model, because that one makes sense to people. Look at the hostility to MMT we see on here, from people who have at least given these things a bit of thought. So imagine trying to re-jig economic thinking and getting broad public support for it. Especially in the face of hostile media reaction, given the threat it would pose to their owners’ interests.
Which is another defeatist argument. Letting the best be the enemy of the good. Poverty is not a relative term, it is a noun. It describes the more extreme end of 'poor'. So even if, as you argue, you can't eradicate poverty (the logic in your argument is valid, even if misapplied) you can minimise its impact. You can reduce the number of people in grinding, hopeless poverty to zero, and improve the lot of the less well-off more generally. Thus you eliminate 'poverty' without eliminating the poor, because there will always, as you say, be those at the bottom of the heap. It's just that the bottom of the heap needn't be the godawful, hopeless, vicious spiral of decline it currently is.
The first step is an easy one. Remove the built in poverty trap that benefits claimants suffer from. It’s cruelty by design, unnecessary, and locks people into either benefit dependency, or low hours, low paid work.I’m all for a safety net for those who need a leg up in life. How do you improve things, just borrow and give people more money to live?
This has been answered so many times now I guess it is not really a sincere question.I’m all for a safety net for those who need a leg up in life. How do you improve things, just borrow and give people more money to live?
But on the other I think if I as someone who is not highly intelligent, can get my head around it, why cant others? Especially the many on here who have been better educated.
Yes. I have absolutely spent a lot of time researching, but that comes after the starting point not before.Because, ISTM, you have spent a *lot* of time researching it.
Most voters have neither the time, nor the inclination, to invest in such things; they want simple explanations and solutions so they can get on with their own lives.
It is interesting that there were 37 written submissions but you chose to link to just one.Even Parliament is starting to ask questions about the nature and function of our “debt”
Feel free to criticise the one I have linked to.It is interesting that there were 37 written submissions but you chose to link to just one.
There are some hilarious ones on there, I assume submissions are open to any member of the public given the highly variable quality of some, and others bordering on fantasy like Mr Morgan the "macroeconomist" at Morganist economics. More than one of them reminds me of the circular MMT posts on here so I wonder if some esteemed Fishies submitted to the committee.It is interesting that there were 37 written submissions but you chose to link to just one.
Anything to say about the content, the arguments or the substance about the nature, purpose or sustainability of our National Debt?There are some hilarious ones on there, I assume submissions are open to any member of the public given the highly variable quality of some, and others bordering on fantasy like Mr Morgan the "macroeconomist" at Morganist economics. More than one of them reminds me of the circular MMT posts on here so I wonder if some esteemed Fishies submitted to the committee.