Good post
. As I stated before I welcome intelligent experiences no matter what party you support. Nothing annoys me more than people who support any candidate and they don't even know them or understand their policies etc.
However, I am glad you brought up the above point. Not sure how many economics classes you have taken as I don't know your background, but take any microeconomics class and one of the things you will learn is that there HAS TO BE poor. The country cannot run if there are not poor people. It is impossible for everyone to be rich. It is one of those things that no one wants to accept but the bottom line is it has to be that way. Why change it? Although some people who are poor might just have bad luck,
the bulk of them chose to not take the higher ground. If they are uneducated and chose to be that way then why change it? Many of my friends came from the ghettos of Miami at F schools are are currently working toward their doctorate. Bottom line is I don't feel sorry for those who don't work as hard probably because I had to work so hard.'
As I disagree most strongly with the italicized point - and feel it is the most inaccurate statement in your rebuttal - allow me to address that first: 'Bad luck' and 'choice' are vague descriptors of the entire socioeconomic platform we operate upon; 'bad luck' implies randomness, and 'choice' implies the ability to dictate the external factors of production and consumption which assist in determining one's economic position; neither are true.
I find it odd you bring up 'Education', as an individualized choice; it is not. If, say, an individual is born into a 'poor' community, the chances are his/her access to education is either diminished, or lesser in quality than yours or mine (assuming we were both lower-to-upper middle class). The facilities, educators, administrators, and funding surrounding his/her economic choices are of a lesser quality - these are not things he/her choose Lake, quite the opposite.
Rather than continue on an affirmative line of thought, let me pose a question to you: As a seventeen year old male, born into destitute community, and being personally financially 'unequipped' yourself, how would you remove yourself from that environment to seek higher education? Your mother and father both work 12+ hours daily for minimum wage, do not possess the ability to fund private schooling, and since the inception of your academic career have not been able to foster you due to the constraints of subsistence.
Further, I find it almost insulting you insinuate that the 'poor' do not work hard; such an assumption is beyond misinformed Lake, and I mean that with no disrespect. As I stated above, abuses of the system invariably occur, but often those on the lowest gradients of economic stratification work
harder than do you and I. On an anecdotal note, I would always cringe when my Venezuelan immigrant friends would tell me their Mother double-shifted
daily as a housekeeper, to make less money in a month than my Mother made in a few days; now, such is not my 'Mother's' fault, nor anybody in her gradient, but merely illustrating your assumption that 'poorness'-as-a-choice is somewhat incorrect.
Finally, Microeconomics is not my preferred choice in analyzing closed systems; its methodology is incredibly assumptive, and operates on the premise of perfect competition, and the inability of individual agents to fundamentally alter market dynamics - or, in other words, it assumes that the market maintains itself in such an equilibrium that an 'equal playing field' - so to speak - is maintained. While the school of thought is equipped with much more complex mechanisms to deal with the increasing veracity of Globalization, I still feel it is somewhat ineffectual in analyzing the effects external market forces exert on individual agents. That being said, your analysis is
somewhat incorrect in terms of:
Not sure how many economics classes you have taken as I don't know your background, but take any microeconomics class and one of the things you will learn is that there HAS TO BE poor.
Firstly, 'poor' and 'rich' are subjectively relative terms, used to denote two positions on opposing ends of the spectrum of a closed economic system; in that respect, Microeconomics does not necessitate nor presuppose 'poorness' and 'richness', it simply presupposes a certain level of economic stratification; such that a gradient of workers laborers at a level sufficiently low enough to profit from their labor, and subsequently profit from the products of their labor. In a micro sense, the individual laborer 'sells' his labor to his employer for a wage - he/she assumes that the capital he receives is worth more than both his/her labor, as well as the time/product/information he/she produced. On the other hand, the employer assumes the opposite: That the time and tasks performed by the laborer are worth more than his capital (I will refrain from delineating capital in terms of variable labor, time consumption, mechanics and so on) - in response, the employer pays the laborer.
Now, this stratification is what must exist, to drive an economy predicated upon consumption; without the equilibrium of labor power being purchased for less than the socially necessary goods it produces, you have market failure. This, and not 'richness' and 'poorness', is what Microeconomics rightfully presupposes. However, with that being said, if you would examine the current levels of Global Stratification and tell me you feel this type of wealth centralization is 'necessary', I may call you crazy.
