Jim Hlavac
| Politics Home The Practicalist The Socialist Era Politics Re-Explained Fundamentals Domestic Affairs Economic Theory Foreign Affairs Libertarian Ideas Political Theory Philosophy Royalty & Theology |
Economic Theory
| Economic Theory |
The Rich and Poor are not nearly at odds with each other as the
many theorists and politicians claim. They are not at odds with each
other because they are not just two things. There are different
types of Rich people, such as those who were born rich versus those
who created some business from scratch.
And there are different types of poor, those who are addicts,
those who just really don't want too much in the way of material
things, and those who are kept poor by political maneuvers. While
Jesus said "the poor shall be with us always," and Karl Marx said that
the Rich keep the poor poor so they can have control over a poorly
paid work force, these broad blank statements aren't really true
when you look at the details.
It is always going to be true that some people are going to be
'richer' than other people. This disparity is the "income gap" so many
talk about. But the income gap is in fact nonsensical in the entire
picture.
If the poor are kept poor by the rich than India and other poor
countries should have vast numbers of rich people -- to correspond
to the numbers of poor people.
While there are rich people who desire to keep their workers
poorly paid, they are in fact following the dictates of Marxist thought
-- they have bought into the theory without any knowledge of it
fallacy. The Marxist theory is only good when you consider his own
reasoning for the creation and operation of the economy. And since
that has proven to be absurd, why then would this element of the
theory still be valid? No one can really name a rational reason for
rich people to pay minuscule wages to poor people. And more than a
few people have proven that if you pay people more you will get
more work out of them. The entreprenuerial incentive concept
obiviously negates the rich keep the poor poor concept. Is it really
possible for two totally opposed ideas to be not only valid -- but in
force at the same time.
If some rich are giving their workers better benefits and salaries
to keep these workers, they can hardly be said to be keeping their
workers poor. On the other hand, if a rich person is working at
keeping his workers low paid, for what purpose?
many theorists and politicians claim. They are not at odds with each
other because they are not just two things. There are different
types of Rich people, such as those who were born rich versus those
who created some business from scratch.
And there are different types of poor, those who are addicts,
those who just really don't want too much in the way of material
things, and those who are kept poor by political maneuvers. While
Jesus said "the poor shall be with us always," and Karl Marx said that
the Rich keep the poor poor so they can have control over a poorly
paid work force, these broad blank statements aren't really true
when you look at the details.
It is always going to be true that some people are going to be
'richer' than other people. This disparity is the "income gap" so many
talk about. But the income gap is in fact nonsensical in the entire
picture.
If the poor are kept poor by the rich than India and other poor
countries should have vast numbers of rich people -- to correspond
to the numbers of poor people.
While there are rich people who desire to keep their workers
poorly paid, they are in fact following the dictates of Marxist thought
-- they have bought into the theory without any knowledge of it
fallacy. The Marxist theory is only good when you consider his own
reasoning for the creation and operation of the economy. And since
that has proven to be absurd, why then would this element of the
theory still be valid? No one can really name a rational reason for
rich people to pay minuscule wages to poor people. And more than a
few people have proven that if you pay people more you will get
more work out of them. The entreprenuerial incentive concept
obiviously negates the rich keep the poor poor concept. Is it really
possible for two totally opposed ideas to be not only valid -- but in
force at the same time.
If some rich are giving their workers better benefits and salaries
to keep these workers, they can hardly be said to be keeping their
workers poor. On the other hand, if a rich person is working at
keeping his workers low paid, for what purpose?