oh yeah? how many people in new orleans died of starvation? were they trading loaves of bread for diamonds and cars? besides, it wasnt free trade capitalism, but goverment welfare that made that situation what it was anyways. you are the one favoring government welfare.
And you don't get wealth operates on a sliding scale. If a poor person defined as poor now makes $10,000/year and I make $100,000.00, what does my $100K need to adjust to for me to maintain the same level of wealth if a person defined as poor is making $40K per year next year? If I make $400K, will my $400K be as valuable as it was last year, or will the poor persons $40K be 4 times more valuable than his $10K was last year?
No, it was circumstance beyond human control that took away the basic necessities of life that created the situation.
you are talking about inflation, not wealth. money can be devalued if everyone has it. but wealth cant. if you have a nice house, and the other guy has a nice house too, you both have nice houses and are happy. him having a house doesnt make your house smaller. again, please understand there is not a limited supply of wealth that we get our piece at somebody elses expense. two people who are both rich are still buying things from each other and they are both happy.
I guess you believe that the poor are getting poorer simply because the rich are getting richer - even though the poor are better off (even including inflation), than they ever have been before...?
exactly. this is what i have been trying to get across forever. making a poor person richer only hurts the rich person if the rich person was forcibly taxed into making that poor person richer. if the rich voluntarily purchased items from the poor guy, both sides win, becaue they both got value from the trade and maximized efficiency. it makes me more wealthy to have access to cheap labor. it makes the laborer more wealthy too. free trade helps both sides.
Yea, but the current minimum wage rate is relatively un-important because it's low enough that it doesn't do too much damage to market efficiency. I agree it's bad for the economy, but understand that it's politically necessary because most of the poeple working for it aren't capable of understanding economics.
No, poor people in America are better off than they have ever been, the middle class is better off than it has ever been, and the wealthy are better off than they have ever been. Proof the system does work and America is thriving by being able to provide for itself. But, I've got enough sense to know poor people will always exist, and whether poor is defined as XXX dollars or XXXXX dollars, they will still be poor relative to the people we define as wealthy. You and martin act like we can go to a free trade system and the whole world will suddenly follow suit and everyone will prosper. That's a great idea, and it just might work if politics didn't play such an important role in world affairs and if we still traded beaver pelts for beef jerkey and beef jerkey for coffee, but that just isn't how it is.
