Reply #87: I have to disagree. [View All]

[Xicano]

For the same reason I have to disagree with this:

Being poor is relevant to there being rich. Therefore, if there are no rich, than there are no poor.

IMO that is a cliché. For example: if you lived in a household where everybody in the household were poor. Everybody in that house is poor not because there's someone who's rich. Everybody is poor because they're freakin poor. Same goes the other way around. Everybody in a rich household is rich not because there's someone in that house who's poor to give some kind of light/dark contrast. Everybody in that house is rich because they're freakin rich.

And group size has no effect on this. Its equally the same if you're talking about an entire city, or an entire state, or an entire country, or the entire world. Financially speaking poor is poor for no other reason other than the poor have very little to nothing. Same goes for the rich but the other way around instead.

So you can have an entire country which is poor, and, you can have an entire country that is rich. It only depends on their production output and how its dispersed, not by some sort of contrast. So for that reason I have to disagree with your assertion.

I'd also like to add something off topic. If we continue with the current model we've been using, I can guarantee you some time in the future we're going to see a hell of a lot more poor because the current models are running this planet into scarcity.