Can there be a government funded social safety net consistent with "capitalism"?

[myrkul]

For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.

I'm curious where and how he came up with such a figure. It may just be from observed ratios, which would explain his mistake... for there has never been a fully unchecked system of capitalism. Indeed, civil government has largely been instituted to protect the rich from competition with the poor.

[1715605132]

1715605132

[1715605132]

1715605132

[1715605132]

1715605132

[Luno]

For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.

I'm curious where and how he came up with such a figure. It may just be from observed ratios, which would explain his mistake... for there has never been a fully unchecked system of capitalism. Indeed, civil government has largely been instituted to protect the rich from competition with the poor.

I don't know how  important documentation of such a number is, it sounds like he is winging it, but it is interesting that even Adam Smith didn't believe that capitalism alone would secure a content lower class.

In Europe, tradition has been not to own your home. In the US a large portion of homes being privately owned, makes a larger portion of the population supportive of the property defending power of authority, Adam Smith describes, which makes sense. Your second amendment, in that context, is a reminder to any government in your country, that all social classes of society needs to be represented! It's like the equally principle in Europe that was made in the same sentiment. If Brittan had allowed the 70% poor to arm them selves in the 1790'ies, how would that have played out?

So is the Second amendment important in that sense still or have I, as an European, gotten it all wrong?

The rights of the lower class in Europe, evolved into labour unions and civil laws that gave the poorest right to a minimum standard of living, freed the black slaves, debt cancellation on grounds of poverty, etc.

So in Europe, every homeless shelter got some or all it's financing from government, we have public health care, and free elementary education and high school. As student in Denmark you only pay for books if you go to university, you get $600 a month to support your self and free public transport. Public pension and welfare for however long you are unemployed. All this "Obamaism" in Europe is considered civil rights to give all equal opportunity to education and well paid jobs, but it expensive. The reccession in Europe has put this "social contract" out on a limp, So we have this republican / democrate, welffare / opportunity size of government debate also.

Your constitutional notion of persuit of happiness, does it only apply to the individual, or does your constitution put some responsibility on government in that respect?

[myrkul]

For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.

I'm curious where and how he came up with such a figure. It may just be from observed ratios, which would explain his mistake... for there has never been a fully unchecked system of capitalism. Indeed, civil government has largely been instituted to protect the rich from competition with the poor.

I don't know how  important documentation of such a number is, it sounds like he is winging it, but it is interesting that even Adam Smith didn't believe that capitalism alone would secure a content lower class.

Well, Einstein couldn't wrap his head around quantum mechanics. In fact, he rejected it. "God does not play dice with the universe," he famously said. Proof positive that even a very smart person can make a mistake.

In Europe, tradition has been not to own your home. In the US a large portion of homes being privately owned, makes a larger portion of the population supportive of the property defending power of authority, Adam Smith describes, which makes sense. Your second amendment, in that context, is a reminder to any government in your country, that all social classes of society needs to be represented! It's like the equally principle in Europe that was made in the same sentiment. If Brittan had allowed the 70% poor to arm them selves in the 1790'ies, how would that have played out?

So is the Second amendment important in that sense still or have I, as an European, gotten it all wrong?

While it's usually safe to assume you have, in this case you seem to have grasped the concept. The Second Amendment is there specifically to prevent one class from being unfairly represented. An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man a slave. Is it any wonder they would very much like to take it away?

Your constitutional notion of pursuit of happiness, does it only apply to the individual, or does your constitution put some responsibility on government in that respect?

Almost all of the constitution is instructions on what the government is not allowed to do. Regarding the pursuit of happiness, the government's primary responsibility is to get out of the way.

[xxjs]

For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.

I'm curious where and how he came up with such a figure. It may just be from observed ratios, which would explain his mistake... for there has never been a fully unchecked system of capitalism. Indeed, civil government has largely been instituted to protect the rich from competition with the poor.

LOL, he was a Keynesian not yet out of the closet!

[Luno]

For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many.

I'm curious where and how he came up with such a figure. It may just be from observed ratios, which would explain his mistake... for there has never been a fully unchecked system of capitalism. Indeed, civil government has largely been instituted to protect the rich from competition with the poor.

LOL, he was a Keynesian not yet out of the closet!

LOL again, but it almost sounds like he is "careing" for the poor, because he says that protecting the rich is not the only responsibility government has.

and thanks for the details myrkul.

[compro01]

In capitalism, you work, or you starve. This provides incentive to work, but most people won't need this incentive, they'll have other desires above and beyond food. It also provides for keeping too many from "scraping the bottom"... at least for very long.

Well, either that or they start following Jean-Jacques Rousseau's dietary advice.