Ah, I see.
In my mind, things are very much about Balance.
We need a Balance between economic freedom and socialism. Both sides are bad in their extremes.
In my opinion, people need the possibility of freedom in enterprises combined with welfare for those who cannot do it.
One of my fvourite Examples is the current Hatz IV system. In its earlier time, when it was more rigid and more extreme, people weren't allowed to participate in the welfare when they still owned a house.
They were forced to sell heir houses, "eat up" ALL of their money they had put asisde, and ONLY when these thing were run dry (read: they had no more money left), THEN they were allowed to receive welfare money.
This sounds normal, but I tried to think about it, analysed it, and I came to this conclusion :
Who profits from people being forced to sell their houses ? Those who already have the money. Because no-one else is avble to buy complete houses except those who have the money for it.
Putting so much money aside for buying a house - and in this case : To buy THEIR houses back - requires several DECADES of putting money aside.
Which in result means that those who are forced to sell their houses probably (and most likely) will NEVER get them back IN THEIR WHOLE LIFE !
Because when they already receive welfare, then they won't have enough money for putting so much aside to get he house back.
But even when they get a job, coming into position tht allows them to put so uch money aside that they will be able to buy their houses back - coming in such a position that lets them earn enough money - that requires several years, and I believe at least a decade to do get into such a job position.
Houses here cost several hundreds of thousands of Euros here.
So, projecting this over time, those people who are forced to sell their houses most likely will never get them back.
And that might well be because those who have bought them most likely will not want to sell them. Why freely sell a save means of constant money income through rental fees ? I assume that any one here would agree that it would be a loss to sell a house that generates a constant stream of money income through rental fees to someone else. It would be like cutting oneself off a money income.
So, to put it rather extremely, it goes like this :
Family becomes poor by losing the job(s) - are forced to consume LL money put aside - are forced to sell the house - only afterwards they get elfare money.
Rich person or rich company has the money to buy the house (poor people or poor companies don't have the money to buy the house) - the bought house is rented - perhaps even to the former owners ! - the bought house generates a constant stream of money income by the rental fees. The money the rich person or company gave is coming in at one point - the house is neither resold nor sold back, because that would be cutting off this stream of income. The former house owners have truly lost their home. There are merely tolerated in their "own" house now.
To cut it short, from forced house sales only those profit -
in the long run - only who already own the money. We have a proverb here which goes like this : "those who lready have, they will be given [even more]".
This is exactly what happens there.
Fortunately people aren't forced to sell their houses anymore.
And, by the way, people here in Germany more and more get the impression that the Hartz IV laws are "keeping them poor". A recent court decision says that people who recive Hatz IV welfare even must give money to the government that they have won ! Or they have received from relatives ! (In one case a grandmother had been giving money to her grandchild. The Hatz IV controlling Arge (tht's government in short) found that out (they are allowed to look into bank accounts of Hartz IV receivers). The family of the grandchild had to give the money to the Arge. There has been a lawsuit over that. And the decision was clear : They had to give the money to the Arge. In a similar thing someone had won a prize from …something by the governmernt. I think it was about art. He or she had to give half of the money to the Arge, too.)
In the "Grand Scheme", it is profitable for companies to have a class of people that is kept poor by the government.
Because people held poor are accepting much, much more bad, really bad wages than middle class people do. And tht means profits : The less money a company hs to pay (that's financial losses, in short), the igher the profits are.
And profits - they are given out by bonus payments and by shareholder revenues.
And who holds the most of the shares ? Usually either a) big companies or/and b) the top employees of the company itself ! - Just take a look at how many managers hold stocks of the own company !
In the end, only those profit from higher company profits who already have the money. Enough money to buy LOTS of shares, for example.
Which means that people in the top positions are interested in paying as few wages as possible - because the less is paid ( = the less there are production losses), the higher the profits are.
The result is that a society with lots and lots and lots of poor people is actually VERY profitable for the "top people". Because poor people work for less. And the less, the better ( read: the less, the higher the profits).
Which could imho very much result in lobbyists trying to influence the government so that people are kept as poor as possible.
And this is what currently happens here in Germany.
And this lower class already has a name : It's called the "Prekariat".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prekariat