> Speaking of controversial things, the above wiki article rightfully > cautioned: > > "Much of the debate about poverty focuses on statistical measures of > poverty and the > clash between advocates and opponents of welfare programs and government > regulation > of the free market. Since measures can be either absolute or relative, it > is possible > that advocates for the different sides of this debate are basing their > arguments on > different ways of measuring poverty. It is often claimed that poverty is > understated, > yet there are some who also believe it is overstated; thus the accuracy of > the > current poverty threshold guidelines is subject to debate and considerable > concern." > > Regards, > Platt
Fair enough. Still, there is no reasonable way of denying that there is a large amount of people in the US that lives under horrible circumstances, and that this in combination with the virtual non-existence of Good social welfare leads to growing social differentiation. And it is not exactly controversial to link crime and poverty together, and then we can take a look at the crime-rate in the US... My point still being that a welfare state provides a better social climate for everybody, and the relative loss in the Dynamic aspect of the market in no way outweighs the benefits of a safe and stable society. The dynamic aspect isn't strangled by some Good Static Latching. Regards Chris Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
