11–20 of 104 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your solution is basically: "kill the poor".
No, quarantine the further spread of poverty.
Heck you might gain a bit of sympathy then so maybe it wouldn't be a completely bad thing...
To me the worse problem is: While I can understand that it is an inconvenient situation to be poor (and I have some kind of compassion for them), I really cannot understand how one could even come to the idea to give rise to children if one is not in a high quantile of earning. If people applied this reproduction strategy consequently, poverty would simply die out.
To me the worse problem is: While I can understand that it is an inconvenient situation to be poor (and I have some kind of compassion for them), I really cannot understand how one could even come to the idea to give rise to children if one is not in a high quantile of earning. If people applied this reproduction strategy consequently, poverty would simply die out.
So your solution is basically: "kill the poor".
So the reduced power of post war rich, combined with fear of communism resulted in the Democratic Socialist consensus that gave us high taxes and a big middle class. (And Vietnam but I digress).
Since fear of Communism has eased and the rich have again massed giant fortunes there's little to stop them weakening the rules that prevent our Democracies from being bought.
To me this is a compelling explanation for how you end up with Trump running against Clinton two historically disliked candidates. Almost everything in the news is just noise to the slow grinding power of wealth accumulation. Occasionally you get a glimpse as WaPo is bought by Bezos, Trump gets elected and Zuck clearly starts to form some presidential ambitions. But largely everything is a distraction to pull your eyeballs, after all that's what our media is paid to do.
[1] http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/Piketty2014Fig...
[2] Capital in Britain 1700-2010: http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/files/capital21c/en/pdf/F3.1.pdf
To me the worse problem is: While I can understand that it is an inconvenient situation to be poor (and I have some kind of compassion for them), I really cannot understand how one could even come to the idea to give rise to children if one is not in a high quantile of earning. If people applied this reproduction strategy consequently, poverty would simply die out.
To me the worse problem is: While I can understand that it is an inconvenient situation to be poor (and I have some kind of compassion for them), I really cannot understand how one could even come to the idea to give rise to children if one is not in a high quantile of earning. If people applied this reproduction strategy consequently, poverty would simply die out.
So your solution is basically: "kill the poor".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So your solution is basically: "kill the poor".
Can you point to the word "kill" in his post?