"in a poor country the majority are poor" fun fact in the richest country on earth it is the same
This reminds me of the time one of my coworkers said Robin Hood was evil for stealing actually, and if he really wanted to help the poor, he would have put his efforts into changing the society he lived in from monarchy to free market capitalism.
“in a poor country the majority are poor” fun fact in the richest country on earth it is the same
Sure, but it's different, you see, because many of them have microwave ovens and color television sets.
Granted I've only really lived my adult life in suburban Texas, but every apartment I've rented came with a refrigerator.
These people are morons.
They're just lazy, and using 60 year old arguments that don't make sense anymore because they're mouthpieces for psychotic octagenarians.
Exactly. That argument only makes sense to someone who grew up in a time where a color TV was actually a luxury item. Now, you can't find anything else unless you try, and you'll probably pay a premium. I mean, does anyone even make black and white tube TVs anymore? Doubtful.
Luxembourg? Or Vatican City. One of those jokingly small ones that are just tax havens
Tbh it’s impressive that Robin Hood is able to run every poor country simultaneously
It's interesting that they consider the majority of people being poor a natural and acceptable and maybe even good thing, but those poor people being able to democratically choose leaders who will protect their interests is the problem.
It's Malthusian shit, early Christian Political Economy. It's never really gone away. I just happened to be reading this right before I hopped on right now:
But as Thomas Malthus and other Christian economists proved, such beauty truly was in the eye of the beholder. Scarcity, evil, and suffering played positive roles in the evangelical theodicy of capitalism. To many of the evangelical economists, our expulsion from the Garden of Eden was not a punishment, but an opportunity. In the evangelical gospel of scarcity, privation was excellent news: the lashes of adversity and competition would compel us into moral and material improvement. Malthus and Nassau Senior led the way among evangelical economists in redefining evil as a necessary good. In his infamous Essay on the Principle of Population (1798) Malthus—an instructor at Haileybury College, the training school for administrators of the East India Company, as well as an Anglican pastor—asserted that want, conflict, and other agonies were parts of a godly metaphysical and moral architecture. Human life, he asserted, is “a state of trial and school of virtue preparatory to a superior state of happiness.” Departing from the mainstream of Christian theology since Augustine, Malthus argued that moral evils and natural calamities were “absolutely necessary to the production of moral excellence … instruments employed by the Deity” to spur industriousness and ingenuity. Malthus’s insistence on the goodness of disaster rested on a toilsome, penurious sacramentality, an ontology of dearth and meanness designed by an omnipotent but skinflint deity. Life is “the mighty process of God,” he insisted, “a process necessary to awaken inert, chaotic matter into spirit.” “The finger of God is, indeed, visible in every blade of grass that we see,” and among the “animating touches of the Divinity” is the salutary character of evil. “Evil exists in the world not to create despair but activity.” (If it failed to spur industry, then, Malthus wrote in the 1826 edition, “we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavoring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality”—i.e., the death of the poor.) Senior—first professor of political economy at Oxford, and a protégé of Whately’s—told students in 1830 that God and nature “decreed that the road to good shall be through evil—that no improvement shall take place in which the general advantage shall not be accompanied by partial suffering.” So rather than look to reform or revolution to end their miserable condition, evangelicals such as Cobden advised workers that they should abide by “the principle of competition which God has set up in this wicked world as the silent arbiter of our fate.”9 The God of Love consigned the poor and dispossessed to a lifelong Calvary road.
The Enchantments of Mammon: How Capitalism Became the Religion of Modernity, it's the middle of Chapter 2 somewheres
like you could argue that malthus had no way to know that production of food would just get so much better so like there is at least a space in which he believed his dumb bulshit but everytime i see person doing a malthusian argument like nowadays it pisses me off so much no you have all the information fuck off
They're right, in that when they say "democracy might be bad for you" they mean themselves, the bourgeois class
Just imagine the sort of person who thinks Robin Hood was the villain of the story.
why is it bad to let poor people make choices? because poor people are stupid and don't understand that the economy must be in favor of the rich and powerful, you dumb fucks
The fun part is that most of them also do not understand the economy because the whole world just went full technocratic, like for real every time someone says this shit i just ask them to explain to me how does the economy actually works then
Anyway also economy is a thing we invented in our minds like it is not a thing that actually exists outside our weird little minds
Before the invasion of Iraq, Bush's state department flooded Kurdistan with $32 million usd all in 100s, within weeks everything including a cup of coffee cost $100 because no one could make a change.
they are not wrong...lmao; except change "keep the country poor" to "unmoor the power of the rich".
"keep the country poor" is a euphemism for "the US places them under international sanctions."
