I don't see how poor people destroy a country.

Unless you are using redistribution, poor people at worst do nothing.

Because poor people are bad with money

They can't innovate and invest

They are essentially dead weight

But they don't go out of their way to harm the economy.

They harm it regardless of their intentions

And how do they harm it?

By existing?

Welfare consumption, foreign and domestic aid, not working and supporting the market

But welfare and aid are because governments and cultures CHOOSE to pursue welfare and aid.

Those are leftist economic choices, not intrinsic to the poor.

@MinecraftMemer in attempt to lift them out of poorness so they can contribute to the economy

If we do nothing, they won't harm the economy.

They'll just remain poor.

It lowers the social health

So the issue isn't welfare?

Which is proven to reduce morale

Welfare is an issue because it doesn't sufficiently lift people out of poverty

Therefore it's a misallocation of money and resources

So then why have welfare in the first place?

It's a waste

@MinecraftMemer because it's good for re-election

So you're suggesting elections are the problems?

I prefer job fairs over welfare

Elections are a problem yes

Temporarily anyways

Democracy is dangerous to competent statecraft because it forces every political decision to be lowered to a level of stupidity that the masses can understand.

If welfare is intrinsic to democracies, then it would be logical to have a different style of government.

In that case, we would have monarchies.

I disagree

Monarchies are almost never concerned about their nation

I would say quite the opposite.

Nationalism is incompatible with monarchies

Nationalism did not exist during the age of monarchs

This is history

Monarchies are probably the MOST concerned for the long term welfare of citizens.

You need a strong, but empathetic, temporary dictatorship

Why not a permanent monarch?

Or an oligarchy of 3-4

Have you ever read Hans-Hermann Hoppe?