It's better to be poor in Norway than in the US

If you want poor people to be poorer, then this is the way is should be.
If you want poor people to be richer, then this is not how it should be.
If you don't carry any agenda, trying to push people into living YOUR way of life, then "shoulding" on someone is not really an option.

I don't mean to be facetious, but the question is a highly loaded one.

Everyone has their own approach to life going on, and there is no better or worse, just different. It's an experiment. Nature tries all kinds of things. We'll see how the U.S. works out, and maybe even learn from it.

Whatever we LET happen, will happen. Whatever works most effectively, will succeed. So there is no right or wrong, should or shouldn't . . . only "they got away with it" or "they didn't". We gave it to them. Or we didn't.

Politics and society operate the same as corporations or business ... by pure economics, random evolution, trying ANYthing and everything. If it works we'll find out, and if it doesn't then we'll also find out.

There's no sense debating what works best, because we'll find out what works best . . . just by trying it all.

The sales and marketting folks might use the new data to mount even more effective political strategies, and manufacture whatever kind of beliefs and attitudes lead to greater reliable profit.

My guess is that America will be trying a great deal more divisive, controlling, and manipulative arrangements in the future. Whenever people have freedom, we HAVE to be better at selling things. That means the poor have to "be kept struggling" even more than they are now. Is there a more effective way to motivate people?

Sell it to them.

I'd sooner be poor in Norway than poor in the US.
I'd sooner be poor in Australia than poor in the US.
I'd sooner be poor in the US than anywhere in Africa.
I'd sooner be rich than poor.

CodeBorg
I read your post twice and can only glean from it you feel that is the way it should be. And if the system does not work it will straighten itself out. I may be mistaken, would you care to clarify your position.
The wealthiest nation in the world has the poorest of the poor class of people of all the industrialized nations. Should it be that way. IMO it is a disgrace after all we are supposed to be the model for democracy or is it greed?

The burden of showing what democracy is about isn't on the shoulders of the US au so that should help a bit. Nor does the rest of the world look to the US to understand how to construct a just society. So that might help too. Sadly it's the opposite. The rest of the world, increasingly, is looking to avoid emulating the US. And I don't say that to insult. Who wants to be the biggest debtor nation? And who wants to be owned by foreign creditors? It's a lesson for sure.

Good article, au. I've long said that the U.S. is not the best country to live in for the poor, the old and the marginalized. Our system is geared to reward the producers, not to take care of all the people. IMO, that has been both its greatest strength and its greatest flaw.

goodfielder
That does not answer my question. However, Bush and company is and has been pushing for democracy in the middle east with the US as the model. What kind of model do we make?
regarding the US being a debtor nation, that is another question entirely. And IMO that is a bubble which will in the not to distant future explode.

It's just a great pity that it wasn't corrected or it could really have been the best place in the world to live. Ah, now I get it....... :wink:

Au1929, I'm sorry that I really do get pretty obtuse and rambling sometimes ...

I guess I view it as a jungle. The system doesn't "work" or "not work",
to any degree at all, because it's not meant to work. American society
will try anything and everything and whatever survives, survives. It's a
very random experiment that has no sense of morality or purpose.
Everybody just does whatever they can.

In that sense, the poor shouldn't be poorer or richer or even the same as
they are now. There is no "should". It's like asking should the wind blow?
Well, it just does, this way and that, whether we like it or not. Sometimes
it's bigger or smaller, but unless I'm flying a kite or trying to light a
cigarette, the wind is not good or evil, a failure or success, desirable or
not. Nature makes the wind blow, and I'm sure the marketting forces in
our society will produce varying degrees of poorness.

The "should" comes only after we choose a goal.

If I want to boost people's standard of living, to satisfy my
self-virtuousness, then poorness is bad, and we should reduce it.
If I want to create a reliable income from others, then poorness is good,
and we should create more of it.


My personal philosophy is to not push people around. So, within my
own life, to say something "should be" or "shouldn't be" ... is unethical.

Living in the jungle, I'd rather observe the lions and tigers and bears
just to know them and appreciate their nature,
than to judge them and push them around.

It's not my place to wish others would live a certain way,
so I only share my own approach here, and read with interest
what everyone else thinks.

Ok your better off in Norway, but you have to put up with all that herring.

Somewhat related:

The UN has a Human Development Index to measure the quality of living
in different countries... "a composite index that looks at indicators such
as life expectancy, adult literacy rates, school enrolments and per capita income."
Norway keeps ranking #1.

There are nice summaries at the BBC
and at CNN, while
the 285-page report can be found at http://hdr.undp.org.



But still . . . seems kinda dark and cold in the winter!