This Is Why Poor People's Bad Decisions Make Perfect Sense

[Alexander's Horse]

Pah! I was born into a family rising from poverty, the depression and the war, nothing is ordained.

[Patroklos]

Was the OP supposed to be a sympathetic character? It's not hard to find a poor person **** on by life instead of her own retarded choices, why did you waist your time quoting this POS?

[kentonio]

Was the OP supposed to be a sympathetic character? It's not hard to find a poor person **** on by life instead of her own retarded choices, why did you waist your time quoting this POS?

On the upside, at least she was intelligent enough to spell 'waste' correctly.

[onodera]

Which explains why the Soviet Union which had these things was poorer than America which did not. Your premise is flawed. You believe that people - when given the necessities of life will seek to improve upon them. The solution is the same as always - freer markets. Why must an education cost 120k? Why can't we, in the age of the internet, get a degree simply through a library card and some elbow grease?

The solution is not for the state to provide for the cost, but rather for the state to simply get out of the way.

Arguing with you is useless, but I'll bite.

1. Which explains why most of the Soviet people found themselves worse off in 1992. Also, don't look at the USSR, look at Germany.

2. Free market is an abstraction, deregulating a market will not result in one.

[Hauldren Collider]

Did most soviets find themselves worse off in 92? Somehow I doubt that the Poles felt worse off, or the Estonians...it's funny how the soviets always called us the imperialists, isn't it? Communism is so ironic I'm not sure that irony or even any word in existence really encapsulates the degree to which it is the opposite of everything it purports to be.

[Ban Kenobi]

The Baltic republics, accounting for ~3% of the Soviet Union's population, were the main beneficiaries from the dissolution. Most of the former Soviet states were basket cases in the 90s.

The Soviets defined imperialism differently, I think. They defined it in terms of exploiting another country's resources, rather than in terms of violating another country's sovereignty.

[notyoueither]

Durr... exploiting resources in external areas was the entire point of imperialism.

[Ban Kenobi]

I don't think Italy invaded Libya because of its economic value.

[Hauldren Collider]

Italy invaded libya because of an incredible little man syndrome affecting an entire nation. And it was Ethiopia, not Libya. Unless you mean following the fall of france in world war II, in which case it was because they were at war with the French and the British.

[Ban Kenobi]

They invaded Ottoman Libya before WWI. Because of their little man syndrome, of course.

[regexcellent]

Libya was an Italian colony, Egypt was British, and Algeria was French.

[Hauldren Collider]

Algeria was french long before world war I

[Sir Og]

Then you misunderstand.

If you are motivated you can increase the probability of success. This is not to say you guarantee success.

This is a question of mobility, not absolutism. Where you start is luck, where you go, up or down, is less so.

I agree with that.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Which explains why most of the Soviet people found themselves worse off in 1992.

And explains why they are better off today than in 1992.

Also, don't look at the USSR, look at Germany.

You're conceding Russia which demostrates that these particular policies, in and of themselves, are peripheral issues.

2. Free market is an abstraction, deregulating a market will not result in one.

Markets always exist. The only thing that changes is the level of freedom they operate under. Freer markets = better economic development and capital expansion over time.

[Alexander's Horse]

In market economies there are winners and losers.