The sad side of America | Page 5 | INFJ Forum

The sad side of America

Okay, as for the economic situation in America...I'm going to do a quick synopsis about where we are and how we got here.

Take two places with equal populations and equal financial situations, then let them do as they please. As people go along their paths, some will have more financial know-how than others, and they will gain a financial advantages. In some situations, those people gain a large advantage, and become rich. Now, let's say that the economics at the time are stable, so the amount of money circulating is fairly consistent -- in that case, those who are more financially savvy will have more money, and those who do not understand finances or are careless will have less. Those who are most financially unfortunate will become poor.

Now, this part is interesting; when the rich people become rich, they may move to a different area that they view as being more desirable. Let's say that those two places we started with have two different geographical situations. A person in place 1 becomes very rich, and decides to move to place 2. Now, they pump more money into the area they move to, and, as such, that area flourishes, but also has a higher cost of living because of it. More financially well-off people from place 1 and 2 can afford to move to this place, and they do so. Unfortunately, it becomes more difficult for poorer people to afford this place, so they are often pushed out into an area with lower standards.

That's the basis.

Now, take an American city, with its most prosperous area in the center. There are suburbs and areas with prosperous people. These areas tend to attract business, since there are consumers willing to make purchases, which is essentially what drives the economy. However, those areas that are financially badly off do not attract business because there is not as many people spending, and as such, jobs become more scarce and the area gets more poor.

When these areas have drugs involved, that becomes the major industry. You soon have a fairly isolated area with very little business but a strong drug trade. Furthermore, those people in that area often don't feel capable of leaving, or they are not given the proper education to become capable to do so. Thus, in this way, it seems that the poor become poorer and the rich becomes richer. However, this is mostly in somewhat large cities -- although smaller areas do have similar things, they aren't usually quite as extreme (though that's not saying that they can't be).

Here's the problem: how do you remedy that? You could pump welfare into the area, but that is meant to keep people afloat until they can support themselves, and a lack of business in such areas can make that difficult. Furthermore, if drug culture is what is keeping the area afloat, then you might have that money being pumped into the drug system instead. Then there's the question of incentives: there are people who cheat the system in order to live off of welfare to avoid working. Welfare is actually somewhat complicated in that area, and it becomes a pressing question of how to create a welfare system that is difficult to manipulate.

So, we go back to the basic phrase: give a man a fish, and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, and he eats for a lifetime.
How do we get people out of these situations, rather than just supporting them in it? How do we pick up those who are in unfortunate places, without limiting the freedom of others to reach whatever heights they can? And how do you do this in a capitalistic system -- change the system completely? How do you do that, without causing mass chaos?

There are no easy answers. And then, America is absolutely gigantic -- I mean, imagine applying a uniform program for healthcare for the entirety of Europe. Texas itself is bigger than most countries over there. We're trying to make one federal program to cover all states, with all their varying demographics, economics, and geographical's no easy task. A mid-western town is going to have very different needs from New York City. I personally think that these things should start from the states because of that, but even easy answers.
The problem here is extremism draws viewers. Viewer numbers draws advertisers. People love to hate viewpoints. Without ad revenue, the cost of airing anything on major network television is insane.

It's not just YOUR problem. It's common psychology that bad / shocking news get significantly more attention. And it's a smart choice for television networks to exploit that (I do not watch television for that reason anymore). The problem is that such representation is universally tolerated and even rewarded. Then there's nothing to counteract it.

If people really though about it they could at least boycott that garbage coming from their screens.
No country or government system can be perfect, unfortunately.
True, government is the perennial scapegoat....and probably for a lot of good reasons (I can think of a few)....however, a lot of goverment programs are run efficiently and effectively and sometimes we look past the real benefits they provide society.

Anyway...blaming the government for problems is just a clever means used to deflect attention from the REAL culprits behind it all.
Anyway...blaming the government for problems is just a clever means used to deflect attention from the REAL culprits behind it all.

BANG. There it is. We use the government to divert the blame off of ourselves.