why have the poors been poor through out history? I consider it facile that the rich had to be the ones to grift them all the time instead of other originators.
Do you honestly think there's one answer to that question?
>>1316218
Spirit coming to understanding itself through itself by Reason.
aka
God wills it.
t. Hegel
>>1316218
two basic answers: luck, and genetics
>grandpappy astor, bundy, collins, dupont, etc etc make it big because of some combination of their intelligence and opportunities
>they have smart kids who take advantage of future opportunities to stay rich, or get richer
>grandpappy smith doesnt exploit the same opportunity because he isnt as smart, or as lucky
>his failure passes through the subsequent genetic line until it becomes a success, or terminates forever
>>1316218
You can't have rich people without having poor people. For every above average there is a below average to counter it.
Think of it like IQ, the average is 100 yet there are people with a higher IQ so to bring the average to 100 there have to be a bunch of people with a lower IQ.
>>1316266
>Hegel
HAHAHAHAHAHA
>>1316279
joke's on you, m8
Hegel predicted you'd laugh at him. Is your mind blown or what?
>>1316276
Wealth is not zero sum
>>1316294
in relative terms it is isn't it?
>>1316218
People have different abilities to produce more than they consume.
Our poor in America would be considered rich in at least half the world.
>>1316316
Though, the "poor" in america seem "rich" because of their indirect exploitation of the poorer rest of the world
>>1316218
As a side note, if you go to Beverly Hills and see men in suits, they're the worker bees.
The men in shorts, socks, sandals and t-shirts are the rich men.
>>1316322
Tyrone never did anything to Kunte Kinte, no.
>>1316316
Though, mind the fact that the "poor" in america seem "rich" because of their indirect exploitation of the poorer rest of the world.
>t. posted from my bangladeshi slave laptop
>>1316339
African kang no doubt.
>>1316339
The latter. The former never ends well.
>>1316339
The latter, obviously
>refrigerators
>internet
>unlimited vidya, movies, books
>air conditioning
>travel
>healthcare
>no toxic disease and hordes of ghouls/CIA agents at my doorstep to violently depose me
>>1316339
depends to be fair, as an Indian I need a lot of rupees to maintain my lifestyle of 1 apartment, an internet and electricity connexion which is always subpar to what a burgerlander gets for flipping burgers at minimum wage.
>>1316360
Well I am not sure if lower class western life as in the question is comparable to India.
if you're looking for one single answer, you're not gonna get it, simple as that.
Whether it's because someone couldn't afford further schooling, had no personal drive to advance further, felt fulfilled a certain point and stopped, had a company they worked for go under and got laid off, there's too many causes in what makes people rich or poor.
>>1316371
it pretty much is. A lot of what western countries take for granted as bare minimum needs are luxuries in india, and we have a schizophrenic government apparatus that needs to be purged with fire.
>>1316360
Get one with a loo.
>>1316305
But relative terms dont really matter that much. When you have people who can starve and freeze to death while surrounded by a world of excess, relativity isnt an issue being considered.
>>1316339
I'd rather live self-sufficiently, hunting and growing plants and making my own tools until the jarl sails into the fjord on his longship and says "get in loser we're raiding England". We could sack a few towns, become wealthy, and eventually be granted land in exchange for peace. This becoming a Lord. My sons would be educated by Greeks and Monks, but would still worship the Allfather. Good times, 800-900, eh?
>>1316581
Enjoy your tapeworm, 50% child mortality and shitty food.
>>1316294
So why are there still large amounts of "poor" people in the first world?
>>1316786
Our poors are overfed let there remain perspective
>>1316269
>genetics
What you wanted to say is some people developed normally some developed in dysfunctional families or suffered brain damage - that's what you meant, thus their quality of life is lower.
>>1316276
Actually, average IQ is always set as 100
>>1316269
Well you're not wrong that a huge proportion of wealth is inherited. A very small amount indeed of new rich are self-made in the mythical "bootstrap" sense.
The big innovation of the 19th and 20th century was a middle class, which promised a good average life with several amenities and so on. It was never expected that anyone would get rich unless they had a particular cunning, a genius idea, and the right backers at the right time.
>>1316761
Small prices to pay for freedom.
>>1316276
There's actually several poor people to a single rich person.
>>1316276
50% of the world's wealth is owned by about 83 ppl, or 13 major families.
2.8 billion ppl currently live below the Western agreed poverty line.
So for every ultra rich person, there's 40 million poor
Let that sink in
Poor want status.
Rich have status.
>>1318207
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StJS51d1Fzg
>>1316218
If there exists a meaningful single answer at all then it is unstable equilibrium
>>1316218
guy on the left
>lack confidence
>needs to assert that he has some
guy on the right
>doesn't care about how other people look at him
Poverty is a relatively new phenomenon, having originated with capitalism and other economic systems after the renaissance in the XIV century.
Poverty is systemic; the poor, and the rich, are the result of the economic system in which they operate.
>>1319417
>Poverty is a relatively new phenomenon
>>1319427
Did you not read the rest of the sentence, moron?
>>1319417
Extreme poverty has been by far the most common condition for everyone until recently. In the west at least it now barely exists
>>1319438
>Extreme poverty has been by far the most common condition for everyone until recently
False.
Extreme poverty is an artificial, and relatively new phenomenon intrinsic to capital-centered economic systems like capitalism, or communism.
In prerenaissance societies there was no poverty, nor richness, as we consider them today. Social class was detremined by status based on aristocratic standards, not on money, or power; money, and power were contingent to the status of a person, or group, not conversely as today.
>>1319417
Hahahaha that is hilarious!
>>1319451
How so?
>>1319450
>In prerenaissance societies there was no poverty, nor richness, as we consider them today.
Key emphasis being "as we consider them today".
If you're a relativist who describes poverty as, for instance "the poorest 10%", then yes of course there will always exist the same number of poor people in the world.
However, if you define poverty as wanting in food and shelter, then literally no one is poor today in the West. A poor person today is less poor, in absolute terms, than kings living a few centuries ago.
Also,
>falling for the marx meme
>>1319457
>Key emphasis being "as we consider them today".
Not really, since I made the difference obvious by explaining it.
>If you're a relativist who describes poverty as, for instance "the poorest 10%", then yes of course there will always exist the same number of poor people in the world.
>However, if you define poverty as wanting in food and shelter, then literally no one is poor today in the West.
By "poverty" it is meant a persistent lack of basic goods.
By "richness" it is meant a persistent abundance of basic goods.
Note that by "lack" it is meant total absence, and/or scarcity, and by "abundance" it is meant not excess, but total presence, or constant supply.
It is only later, with the corrupt systems that arose after the middle ages, that the socioeconomic equilibrium of societies became unstable and extreme, the definitions of "rich", and "poor", becoming perverted also.
>A poor person today is less poor, in absolute terms, than kings living a few centuries ago.
You're fucking retarded.
>>falling for the marx meme
???
>>1316829
>t-theres no such thing as genetics, everyone is the same height, and has the same intelligence! - t. tumblrwhale
>>1319470
>By "poverty" it is meant a persistent lack of basic goods.
And no one in the western world lacks of basic goods. Thanks for agreeing with me.
>You're fucking retarded.
For stating a fact?
>???
How dishonest.
>>1319477
>And no one in the western world lacks of basic goods.
Just go away, retard.
>>1319478
>I-I'll call him a retard, that'll show him
"""poor""" people today have iPhones and the latest air jordans.
>>1319417
Well apparently they needed the word before the 14th century.
>1125-75; Middle English poverte < Old French < Latin paupertāt- (stem of paupertās) small means, moderate circumstances. See pauper,
>poor (adj.)
>c. 1200, "lacking money or resources, destitute; needy, indigent; small, scanty," from Old French povre "poor, wretched, dispossessed; inadequate; weak, thin" (Modern French pauvre), from Latin pauper "poor, not wealthy," from pre-Latin *pau-paros "producing little; getting little," a compound from the roots of paucus "little" (see paucity) and parare "to produce, bring forth" (see pare).
>>1319481
You're so far into your own ignorant and conceited bubble that you don't even know the difference between being poor, or being rich.
>>1319492
> that you don't even know the difference between being poor, or being rich.
I do, I go by the same definition as you do :
>By "poverty" it is meant a persistent lack of basic goods.
Completely agree with this.
I then added that no one in the western world lacks in basic supplies. You then proceeded to chimp out.
>>1319496
You're an idiot, and a willful ignoramus.
Is this marxist history?
>>1319505
What does Marx have to do with this?
>>1319509
It's a buzzword I see every so often on his and I have no idea how it factors into this.
>>1319503
Do you have any argument beyond "ur dum"?
Or are you such a literal fucktard that your puny brain can't muster anything beyond incoherent insults?
>>1316329
>Exploitation
Why would they work building laptops if they had a better alternative?
The poorest and most marginalised groups in these societies are the one who benefit the most from factories moving over. Bangladeshi girls can now earn an income themselves meaning that they are no longer dependent of male family members who abuse them etc. The factory owner doesn't care if you are low caste, so long as you can do your job he will pay you. These wages are going up.
>>1316786
>Poor
Not compared to those on the streets in Bamako etc
>>1319417
>Poverty
>Originated with capitalism
Capitalism has lifted more out of poverty than any system before or contemporary to it.
>Marxists
>>1319587
Do you even know what a Marxist is?
