Why People Are Poor: More Rightwing Inevitability Theories

The rightwing also tosses about more inevitability theories about poverty.

A rightwing character on here recently informed me that poverty was caused by low IQ. In the US, and apparently around the world.

But this is false, and it relies on a false understanding of the nature of capitalism. Sure, under capitalism the lower IQ types will tend to fall towards the bottom. However, there are many states in the world that have eliminated or nearly eliminated extreme poverty. There are millions or tens of millions of low IQ persons in China, Belaus, Cuba, the Arab World (particularly the Gulf), Russia and the former USSR.

Yet somehow, these places have managed to provide just about everyone with a place to live. There is no homelessness in Finland, Belarus, North Korea or Cuba. There is very little homelessness in many European states. It’s unknown in the Arab World. There is very little homelessness in Russia and the former USSR. It’s illegal to be homeless in China.

There is almost no hunger or malnutrition in any of the places listed above, except for some parts of the Arab World. There must be hundreds of millions of low IQ people in those place. There’s nothing about having a low IQ that means that you automatically won’t have enough food to eat.

Infant mortality is low in most of the places above with the exception of the Arab World. So is maternal mortality. Infant and maternal mortality is particularly low in Europe, Russia and the former USSR. There are 100’s of millions of low IQ people in those places. Just because you are low IQ, does not mean that your babies have to die from hunger or lack of health care, nor does it mean that if you are female, you will be forced to die in pregnancy.

The rightwing lies. There’s nothing to be done about poverty. It’s all caused by stupidity, and stupidity is genetic.

China, a high IQ country, had a life expectancy of 32 years in 1949. The peasantry lived on the continual border of life and death. Most were perpetually malnourished, and if you got sick, you either got better or you died, real simple. And this was in one of the highest IQ countries on Earth.

Suppose we could genetically engineer humanity so every country could have an average IQ of 100. Or better, so the vast majority of humanity would have the equivalent of a 2011 IQ of 90+ or even 100+. That would no guarantee whatsoever against mass starvation, sky high infant and maternal mortality, high disease rates or much less poverty.

Poverty is built into the capitalist system, and everyone can’t be rich. When everyone is rich, $1 million and $1.75 buys you a Slurpee at a 7-11. It is the nature of the unregulated capitalist system to create insane extremes of wealth and poverty. Why are some rich? Because others are poor. The rich are rich because millions are poor. The poor make the rich rich. The more you impoverish the middle and working classes and the poor, the richer the rich gets. All of this is independent of IQ.

Unregulated capitalism creates mass death from disease, hunger and poverty. And in a world of brainiacs, there would still be 100’s of millions of poor, because everyone can’t be rich. When everyone is rich, no one is rich. When every country is rich, no nation is rich. Think about it.

This is more rightwing hopelessness. Poverty is in your genes. There’s nothing to be done. Move along now.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Why People Are Poor: More Rightwing Inevitability Theories”

  1. We’re not living under capitalism. We’re living under the New Communism called globalization. Taking from the productive classes (that’s us) and giving to the unproductive ones (the 3rd world and communist countries). That is why people are poor. You can’t go around punishing succcess and then wonder why we have no success. People won’t work hard to produce thoings if they know the fruits of their labor will be given away to other countries.

  2. As usual, your point is well thought out. But this time I say your points and reasoning are incomplete. I’m certainly with you that there should be “some” transition of wealth from the top to bottom at least to maintain the lower end of your society. When a society executes that smoothly, you have an overall decent society. Based on what you’re saying, however, I’m not sure you understand what the Richard Lynns of the world are saying; there are certainly (approx)2.4M persons in China with IQ’s less than 70, but there are also (approx) 10’s of millions persons there with IQ’s above 160 to carry them. This is the nature of statistics and the normal distribution. In a place like nigeria however(Rejecting Lynn’s number, in favor of Weicherts) the IQ average is around the mid 80’s which implies that for the sub 85 IQ’s there, there simply aren’t enough 145 pluses to still make a productive and prosperous society. Extreme capitalism there only makes it worse, bc, they’re not even spreading the wealth that they do have!! Tell if I’m mis-reading you here.

  3. Well, this entire article is misleading. The poor are poor because they do not have property rights, which is one of the most important rights humans can have, and who’s fault is this? Control freaks that like to micromanage every resource in their society, ie Kim Il Jong, Chavez, Castro, and Mugabe. Amazing, the left wing and socialists rely on the poor staying poor so they can maintain their power over them and blame the right wing for all their failed attempts to involuntarily redistribute resources to the poor, instead of having them voluntarily donate to help those in need through charities. What’s even more mind boggling is that you deny that there is a huge famine in North Korea, but that’s not the main argument. It’s simple as this, you want people’s standard of living to increase? let them voluntarily trade with each other to be better off, which ultimately results in free markets, or extreme capitalism as you socialists like to demonize it. You want them to stay poor? centrally plan resources and make decisions with the absence of prizes, and you will see massive shortages, massive surpluses of products they do not need, and equal misery for all of them (for all the bawwing you socialists like to do on income inequality).

    Then you get to your most absurd point:
    “Unregulated capitalism creates mass death from disease, hunger and poverty. And in a world of brainiacs, there would still be 100′s of millions of poor, because everyone can’t be rich. When everyone is rich, no one is rich. When every country is rich, no nation is rich. Think about it.”

    Unregulated capitalism, or the profit motive, whether its in dollars or personal recognition is what has allowed humans to solve many of the world problems. You make a profit by solving the scarcity problem. Research Norman Borlaug, responsible for saving +1 billion lives from hunger. As for your socialists counterparts, Rachel Carson has blood on her hands for being responsible for the banning of ddt which in turn has resulted in the deaths of millions of Africans from malaria. Socialists Cloward and Piven played a major part in increasing the welfare state in the US thus destroying many African american and Latino families by replacing the father figure with the state and giving incentives to people to live off the government, instead of helping them better their selves like a true charity. And you already know the effects from central planning (communism, collectivism, fascism, corporatism, socialism) that resulted in the deaths of millions and millions of people throughout the 20th century from starvation and just straight up murder.

    I don’t even think you even know what rich means. Most of the people living in developed nations are rich compared to their counterpart in developing nations, and we will reach a point where everyone in the planet is going to be rich compared to us today. This means that their standard of living will be way greater than any monarch from the 18th, 20th century, or even today could have ever hoped for.

    1. “”Unregulated capitalism, or the profit motive, whether its in dollars or personal recognition is what has allowed humans to solve many of the world problems.””

      Far from it. Unregulated Capitalism coupled with globalization has turned trade into a weapon of mass destruction. Consider historical trading routes like the silk route of central Asia and the Meccan trade route of Arabia. All parties who traded along these routes became wealthy. Today, trade is used as a weapon to sabotage competitors. No longer is surplus exported for the sake of obtaining commodities of equal value. Instead, corporations invade economies by wiping out domestic competition and seizing resources.The goal is not to create an equitable partnership dedicated to mutual prosperity, but to drain capital.

      1. “Unregulated capitalism”

        “Instead, corporations invade economies by wiping out domestic competition and seizing resources.The goal is not to create an equitable partnership dedicated to mutual prosperity, but to drain capital.”

        A little drastic interpretation. The goal of a corporation wouldn’t be to “drain capital”. That’s like saying the goal of a top predator in ecosystem is to kill off all other animals. Corporations generally don’t behave this way, it’s Kantian contradiction. Meaning it’s not sustainable behavior. Corporations are actually a more benevolent Western creation, versus say theoretical physicists, the Catholic church, and the theoretical physics/church/military complex.

        Corporations do wipe out native cultures though, unless the natives have no money to begin with. In which case the natives are useless and stymie the corporation. At which point the corporation is powerless and the West usually sends in the military. This leads to “white guilt” and Western liberalism which is not some theoretical artifact or expression of white personality or “stupidity” as the white right sadistically likes to joke. But a real reaction to real criminal deeds.

    2. The rich do rob from the middle class to give to the poor. Then they find ways to evade their own taxes because they can afford good lawyers and accountants.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.