Topic: If You Hate Poverty, You Should Love Capitalism - page 8. (Read 1480 times)
I hate poverty in the sense that it brings about bad conditions for people and that it makes them live a difficult life, but I also don't agree with capitalism. I have accepted the fact that in a society, there will always be a class system and that poverty cannot be 100% alleviated, especially if the rich prevails. I still continue to pity the poor and wish I could do something more for them. I've been active in public service and try to help in my capactity but this is simply how society works. I don't think everyone can ever be 100% equal.
I think it's an exaggeration. We know the capitalist countries in which many poor people. For Example India. And we know that a socialist country like Sweden where there is poor. The number of poor in the country depend on the fairness of the distribution of monetary resources.
This line that you have mentioned. It is really indeed true that this would really be a great thing but having a fair distributions is nearly impossible on most countries which we would really able to see there are still poor on the place.As long there are people who dont really care on that equality.Believe me, because our life never have bad treat poorly with those who are diligent, humble and not waste money.
Just as true communism has never existed, nor has true capitalism. If you took a proper look at how US defence companies are funded it's veering towards socialistic paternalism. Each one is funded to keep them all ticking along happily enough even when there are clearly superior and cheaper alternatives.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
So are you saying that true communism would actually work?
Well yes and that's pretty much capitalism, each one needs a sponsor a donator to fund them in order to start things or keep them going for a cut of a profit. just like how first pc was made and distributed and even how Tesla had things going, he was given funds by a wealthy person. in this case, government is that wealthy person. There is no perfect system, there are just ones that work better.Communism can work in ideal world. But in place where each human has his or her owen incentives, it will never work. That is the problem.
-In a society with no government, anyone could steal property because there is no significant body protecting the existence of it.
-Because of this, private firms would develop which help to protect people's homes
-The private firms are incentivised by profit, so the best security is for rich people
Therefore, rich people can protect their property while poor people cannot. Because you claim that people act based on their incentives, that would mean that rich people would become oppressive and control poor people's homes, thus making the transition to "anarcho-capitalism" utterly pointless.
Just as true communism has never existed, nor has true capitalism. If you took a proper look at how US defence companies are funded it's veering towards socialistic paternalism. Each one is funded to keep them all ticking along happily enough even when there are clearly superior and cheaper alternatives.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
So are you saying that true communism would actually work?
Well yes and that's pretty much capitalism, each one needs a sponsor a donator to fund them in order to start things or keep them going for a cut of a profit. just like how first pc was made and distributed and even how Tesla had things going, he was given funds by a wealthy person. in this case, government is that wealthy person. There is no perfect system, there are just ones that work better.Communism can work in ideal world. But in place where each human has his or her owen incentives, it will never work. That is the problem.
Just as true communism has never existed, nor has true capitalism. If you took a proper look at how US defence companies are funded it's veering towards socialistic paternalism. Each one is funded to keep them all ticking along happily enough even when there are clearly superior and cheaper alternatives.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
So are you saying that true communism would actually work?
Well yes and that's pretty much capitalism, each one needs a sponsor a donator to fund them in order to start things or keep them going for a cut of a profit. just like how first pc was made and distributed and even how Tesla had things going, he was given funds by a wealthy person. in this case, government is that wealthy person. There is no perfect system, there are just ones that work better.
It is just the same for every kind of rule.
It will always be the richest that is up there.
Why not give the poor a chance to be the capitalist. Maybe we will see how they are all better than those who have been rich since birth.
The thing is there will always be slavery in this world for any kind of government system.
It will always be the richest that is up there.
Why not give the poor a chance to be the capitalist. Maybe we will see how they are all better than those who have been rich since birth.
The thing is there will always be slavery in this world for any kind of government system.
There is one very key word that is missing from the thread title: "Regulated" Capitalism. It is the nature of a capitalist business to seek a monopoly as the most efficient means to keep it's profits flowing. Not only does it seek the monopoly, but it seeks to continue the monopoly and this means putting up barriers to competitors. This all leads to a bad end result for most consumers. That is why you need sensible market regulators, who contain the greedy while sharing the funds necessary for government.
I think it's an exaggeration. We know the capitalist countries in which many poor people. For Example India. And we know that a socialist country like Sweden where there is poor. The number of poor in the country depend on the fairness of the distribution of monetary resources.
This line that you have mentioned. It is really indeed true that this would really be a great thing but having a fair distributions is nearly impossible on most countries which we would really able to see there are still poor on the place.As long there are people who dont really care on that equality.Believe me, because our life never have bad treat poorly with those who are diligent, humble and not waste money.
This is a decent youtube clip emphasizing positive aspects of capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
First of all Increase in GDP doesn't implies increase in Welfare.
No doubt Capitalism is fuel for the economy and make it productive. But may not give desired results due to following points -
1. Inflation - Even if capitalism raises national income, it always contribute to increasing prices and therefore worse the situation if inflation rate is more than growth rate.
2. Per Capita Income - However, we cannot stick to one measure if we have more contradictory measures like population. When population increase is more than growth than capitalism becomes irrelevant as poors lose.
Basically many modern societies are capitalist where we have the bourgeois (known as the employers) and the proletariats(known as the employees )- as postulated by Karl Marx.
In my view, the point then is, it is poverty that has made more capitalist to emerge both individuals or country because of the struggle to survive as also opined by Herbert Spencer (survival of the fittest ). Poverty is in the land & people are trying their hands in different fields and daring new grounds and eventually emerging as new employer, you can name them even globally ranging from those who have made there mark in social media, comedy, arts & culture science & technology, health, hospitality industry etc.
In my view, the point then is, it is poverty that has made more capitalist to emerge both individuals or country because of the struggle to survive as also opined by Herbert Spencer (survival of the fittest ). Poverty is in the land & people are trying their hands in different fields and daring new grounds and eventually emerging as new employer, you can name them even globally ranging from those who have made there mark in social media, comedy, arts & culture science & technology, health, hospitality industry etc.
I think it's an exaggeration. We know the capitalist countries in which many poor people. For Example India. And we know that a socialist country like Sweden where there is poor. The number of poor in the country depend on the fairness of the distribution of monetary resources.
This line that you have mentioned. It is really indeed true that this would really be a great thing but having a fair distributions is nearly impossible on most countries which we would really able to see there are still poor on the place.As long there are people who dont really care on that equality. 
Just as true communism has never existed, nor has true capitalism. If you took a proper look at how US defence companies are funded it's veering towards socialistic paternalism. Each one is funded to keep them all ticking along happily enough even when there are clearly superior and cheaper alternatives.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
Truly unfettered capitalism would be just as corrosive as all the other failed systems.
I think it's an exaggeration. We know the capitalist countries in which many poor people. For Example India. And we know that a socialist country like Sweden where there is poor. The number of poor in the country depend on the fairness of the distribution of monetary resources.
This is a decent youtube clip emphasizing positive aspects of capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
Capitalism has granted decreased world poverty by 80% since 1970, the real question is...: Can it keep doing it in the future? Can it just keep delivering? Look around.. more and more of the jobs that used to provide people with incomes are getting destroyed by automation. Automation is good, so you can't simply keep the machines away because the machines make our lives easier.
So what is the solution? Because I don't see any other solution beside basic income in order to guarantee all the destroyed jobs don't make even more people poor. And these claims of "but new jobs get created" are delusional, jobs get destroyed at an higher rate than they are created.
This is a decent youtube clip emphasizing positive aspects of capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
Not sure, but I think world poverty is still high and we cannot say that capitalism has done something to solve the problem. I think the problem always has always been greed. Governments spends so much money for warfare which amounts to trillions of dollars a year. But to be honest, world hunger and poverty can already be solved just with a trillion dollars. But what are governments doing?
This is a pure sophism since capitalism will always define the concepts of poverty or wealth according to its own consumerist and destructive parameters, so that the individuals who consume the most are usually considered the richest, and not those who live happily despite their austere habits.
* funkenstein searches for the like button
This is a pure sophism since capitalism will always define the concepts of poverty or wealth according to its own consumerist and destructive parameters, so that the individuals who consume the most are usually considered the richest, and not those who live happily despite their austere habits.
This is a decent youtube clip emphasizing positive aspects of capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
I also argue for capitalism, but you present here the worst argument ever. Correlation is not causation. Not only is it unclear that capitalism is meaningfully adopted (in a centralized fiat monetary system you hardly have market forces at work) but also the context of increased technology and infrastructure hugely important for poverty is .. . simply ignored!!
This is a decent youtube clip emphasizing positive aspects of capitalism. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire. The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970". They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire. The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970". They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
To be honest, capitalism is not a perfect economic system...it was not perfect before, not perfect now and will never be perfect in the future. It has so many flaws...but the thing is that there is no other system that is much better...meaning to say that all other systems of economy are even much worst than capitalism.
Socialism has failed in so many aspects and there are now many nations who are big admirers of socialism who are experiencing some level of economic collapse.
I will always go for capitalism though there is no stopping us to also introduce some economic cushioning for people who find a hard time to compete in an open field.
This is a decent youtube clip emphasizing positive aspects of capitalism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
I dont hate capitalism but it didnt really reduced the levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades. In fact, poverty now is becoming widespread, there are more homeless men and women now compared to the ones in the past. Just look at the USA, there are many homeless people there so therefore I conclude that capitalism doesnt really elevate living standards of all, but elevates the way of making money of those who have money.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_n6ivGgb9RY
More fuel for the discussion on capitalism fire.
The main point alleged here is: "world poverty has fallen by 80% since 1970".
They claim capitalism is the main driving force behind reduced levels of poverty over the past 5 or so decades, which in turn implies capitalism creates elevated living standards.
Said increase in poverty is caused by large increases in wealth & wage inequality.
Here is a great example.
It isn't capitalism that is responsible for poverty increasing over the last few decades, it has more to do with how wealth and wages are distributed and the trend towards them being distributed unfairly.
Jump to: