Simple question. I don't think it can. A more realistic goal, how can government reduce poverty to an acceptable level? What is an acceptable level? I will state that 6% of the population below the poverty line is acceptable.
Populate with new people who have the interest of the majority and everything good, including more equitable, meritocratic scales of inequality will naturally emerge.
So basically a 4 step process.
1) Dissolve
2) Repopulate with democratic socialists
3) Disassociate from private, concentrated power
4) Place reasonable constraints on private power, principally through a legal dismantling of the corporation construct.
Once the fundamental barriers are gone there wouldn't be much standing in the way of a more equitable allocation of resources.
The point of the government, as it exists now, is to keep decisions on the allocation of resources restricted to a small, self interested group of people. So it would take radical change to make government reverse course and substantially reduce poverty.
It wouldn't be easy in this country given the status quo, but just like trumps unconstitutional business dealings, just because fixing it is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it.
Nixon was in favor of a guaranteed annual income at first, just cutting a gov't check to the poorest people. Which has a lot of advantages over various ridiculous social programs.
Force people to bare the true cost of their children, if not up front in cash then via a credit system based on their expected life trajectory. Then you can be a lot more generous with the duds that slip through the cracks knowing it won't create a cycle of dependency.
Populate with new people who have the interest of the majority and everything good, including more equitable, meritocratic scales of inequality will naturally emerge.
So basically a 4 step process.
1) Dissolve
2) Repopulate with democratic socialists
3) Disassociate from private, concentrated power
4) Place reasonable constraints on private power, principally through a legal dismantling of the corporation construct.
Once the fundamental barriers are gone there wouldn't be much standing in the way of a more equitable allocation of resources.
The point of the government, as it exists now, is to keep decisions on the allocation of resources restricted to a small, self interested group of people. So it would take radical change to make government reverse course and substantially reduce poverty.
Is deregulation part of item 3? The USA basically has 3 and 4 at least to some degree. Perhaps look at countries where the poverty rate is very low. The USA poverty rate is about 13% now IIRC.
It wouldn't be easy in this country given the status quo, but just like trumps unconstitutional business dealings, just because fixing it is difficult doesn't mean we shouldn't fix it.
Absolutely, the question is how to at least lower the poverty rate.
Force people to bare the true cost of their children, if not up front in cash then via a credit system based on their expected life trajectory. Then you can be a lot more generous with the duds that slip through the cracks knowing it won't create a cycle of dependency.
A lot more government intervention which is probably oppressive actually.
Nixon was in favor of a guaranteed annual income at first, just cutting a gov't check to the poorest people. Which has a lot of advantages over various ridiculous social programs.
This is an idea Milton Friedman had too. Basically it amounts to is a negative income tax. The problem is that many people that don't get a check resent those that do in my view.
These kinds of questions are funny because the assumption behind them is the US is the only country in existence. Once you start looking at other countries, their poverty rates, and how oppressive or free they are vs the US, then a lot of the arguments fall away.
I'm saying this idea that poverty rates are somehow intractable are belayed by the fact that other countries with similar GDP have much lower rates, higher freedom ratings, higher happiness, etc. Once the scope of what's possible is opened a lot of the oppression/vs helping the poor or other arguments makes much less sense and is, rightly, seen as a narrowly defined American justification for the status quo.
Yeah, but it's about to be redistributed from mine and kioshk's wallets into Donald trump's wallet, which seems like the wrong direction for redistribution to flow