Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 16.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 04, 2014, 09:33:42 PM

"Free markets" will always need some sort of regulation, unless you want to destroy the planet for greed... because there will always be an idiot who thinks nobody will miss one tree less.

can't chop down trees you don't own on land you don't own, so nope! invalid.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: tooil on September 04, 2014, 10:03:23 PM

Quote from: twiifm on September 04, 2014, 09:54:16 PM

Quote from: giantdragon on September 04, 2014, 09:22:47 PM

Quote from: Bonam on September 04, 2014, 08:24:11 PM

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.
To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required.

Absolutely FALSE for the true socialism (with planned economy)! USSR had created a lot of wealth without market economy.

What? USSR collapsed

USSR collapsed not because of socialism. It collapsed because it lose the cold war and because the world was still trying to recovery from ww2 and raw material exporting county like Russia can only sell the commodities for low price.

how can you lose a 'cold' war? to many solders died? lol

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

Quote from: gts476 on September 04, 2014, 08:43:27 PM

Techno Communism is still communism mate.

That is a red herring apropos the OP here... (and secondarily, you seem to be suggesting that what I wrote necessarily implied "communism", which is a strawman, but forget that).

I guess another way to state the solution is: forbid artificially manufactured scarcity, for then would poverty cease to be a sensible point of reference. Again, think of it this way: under what condition does poverty exist? When artificial scarcity emerges.

RBE (redundant, all economies are resources based) usually refers to community ownership of resources / means of production (communist), community control of means of distribution (oh so communist) no price mechanism (communist), allocation via 'super' computer (central planning - super communist) based on individual need not productive capacity(communist).

RBE is techno-communism run by e-lenin.

oh, and its been around for 40 years as an idea, RBE has no allocation algorithm for e-lenin. 40 years? still no algorithm.

Bonam

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: giantdragon on September 04, 2014, 09:55:19 PM

I meant during its existence.

Hardly. The people of the USSR lived a largely impoverished existence for the majority of the USSR's lifespan. And, to whatever extent any wealth was created, it was a result of what little free enterprise could still occur under the socialist structure.

For a better example, consider China. It remained largely impoverished until its government started introducing minor reforms that allowed traces of free enterprise into the system. The moment they did that, they got significant economic growth.

tooil

full member

Activity: 181

Merit: 100

Quote from: twiifm on September 04, 2014, 09:54:16 PM

Quote from: giantdragon on September 04, 2014, 09:22:47 PM

Quote from: Bonam on September 04, 2014, 08:24:11 PM

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.
To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required.

Absolutely FALSE for the true socialism (with planned economy)! USSR had created a lot of wealth without market economy.

What? USSR collapsed

USSR collapsed not because of socialism. It collapsed because it lose the cold war and because the world was still trying to recovery from ww2 and raw material exporting county like Russia can only sell the commodities for low price.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: twiifm on September 04, 2014, 09:54:16 PM

What? USSR collapsed

I meant during its existence.

twiifm

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: giantdragon on September 04, 2014, 09:22:47 PM

Quote from: Bonam on September 04, 2014, 08:24:11 PM

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.
To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required.

Absolutely FALSE for the true socialism (with planned economy)! USSR had created a lot of wealth without market economy.

What? USSR collapsed

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

"Free markets" will always need some sort of regulation, unless you want to destroy the planet for greed... because there will always be an idiot who thinks nobody will miss one tree less.

giantdragon

legendary

Activity: 1582

Merit: 1002

Quote from: Bonam on September 04, 2014, 08:24:11 PM

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.
To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required.

Absolutely FALSE for the true socialism (with planned economy)! USSR had created a lot of wealth without market economy.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

1 more graph for the socialists and communists to choke on

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: ?? on ??

The solution that will end poverty is to abandon the money-market system and in its stead create a resource based economy that at its heart serves technological progress.

Put differently, to answer the OP, the answer is "neither". Wink

Techno Communism is still communism mate.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Here is some more graphic's of welfare spending vs poverty

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 04, 2014, 08:32:22 PM

Quote from: gts476 on September 04, 2014, 08:29:10 PM

In a free market if you earn only $30 dollar a month its because your worth $30 a month. You are literally fucking useless and what you can do is so useless that someone will only pay you $30, wow. Find a way to be more useful or STFU.

Know why people earn more than you? Because what they do is more useful and more valuable.

Want more money? DO SOMETHING MORE USEFUL! BECOME MORE SKILLED! or stfu.

You know things aren't that linear! If a corporate can threat the region with unemployment they will exploit the locals as far as they can. Even if what they do worth millions they will always try to pay for the lowest bid.
I see many uneducated good for nothing being well paid at Europe, and many skilled workers at Asia being overexploited.

Free market? Then you agreed to work for $30 a month.

Non free market? Then its socialism/communism/fascism and your just an animal being farmed by your government.

In a free market you agreed to work for $30 because your worth $30.

More uneducated good for nothing in the EU? EU is not a free market, it is socialist as fuck.

Many in Asia exploited? Where? China? Communist, not free market.

twiifm

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: Bonam on September 04, 2014, 08:24:11 PM

Quote from: sana8410 on June 04, 2014, 10:07:53 AM

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.

To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required. In pure capitalism, the rewards tend to concentrate in the hands of a few. A touch of socialism (i.e. progressive income tax, estate tax, and social programs, as presently exist in most Western nations) redistributes the wealth enough to allow everyone a chance. All Western nations use economies that are a mixture of capitalism (free private enterprise) and socialism (government taxes and programs), therefore we are largely on the right track. Most economic political debates focus on where on the spectrum a society should be, with usually the furthest left and furthest right positions still remarkably close together on the spectrum.

Best answer so far

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

Quote from: gts476 on September 04, 2014, 08:29:10 PM

In a free market if you earn only $30 dollar a month its because your worth $30 a month. You are literally fucking useless and what you can do is so useless that someone will only pay you $30, wow. Find a way to be more useful or STFU.

Know why people earn more than you? Because what they do is more useful and more valuable.

Want more money? DO SOMETHING MORE USEFUL! BECOME MORE SKILLED! or stfu.

You know things aren't that linear! If a corporate can threat the region with unemployment they will exploit the locals as far as they can. Even if what they do worth millions they will always try to pay for the lowest bid.
I see many uneducated good for nothing being well paid at Europe, and many skilled workers at Asia being overexploited.

gts476

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: twiifm on September 04, 2014, 06:19:32 PM

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 04, 2014, 04:46:18 PM

Quote from: twiifm on September 04, 2014, 04:11:52 PM

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 04, 2014, 01:50:25 PM

Quote from: obocaman on September 04, 2014, 01:45:17 PM

30 dollars a month a lot? how can you survive?

Prices are usually adapted to the different realities...

Not when economies are globally connected. A Toyota car or a Samsung phone costs about the same regardless of the market.

Let me see how much you require a Toyota or a Samsung to survive...
hmmm...
...
Got it!
0.00%

But like I said early, "poverty" has a very wide meaning.

Id like to see you live on $30 a month even in the poorest country and tell us if its fine because prices adapt.

Seems like you've never been to poor country before

You are the worst caricature of the privileged white male

In a free market if you earn only $30 dollar a month its because your worth $30 a month. You are literally fucking useless and what you can do is so useless that someone will only pay you $30, wow. Find a way to be more useful or STFU.

Know why people earn more than you? Because what they do is more useful and more valuable.

Want more money? DO SOMETHING MORE USEFUL! BECOME MORE SKILLED! or stfu.

Bonam

sr. member

Activity: 420

Merit: 250

Quote from: sana8410 on June 04, 2014, 10:07:53 AM

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.

To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required. In pure capitalism, the rewards tend to concentrate in the hands of a few. A touch of socialism (i.e. progressive income tax, estate tax, and social programs, as presently exist in most Western nations) redistributes the wealth enough to allow everyone a chance. All Western nations use economies that are a mixture of capitalism (free private enterprise) and socialism (government taxes and programs), therefore we are largely on the right track. Most economic political debates focus on where on the spectrum a society should be, with usually the furthest left and furthest right positions still remarkably close together on the spectrum.

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

$1.25/day back in 1930 inside USofA would mean a good wage... nowadays under $10/day at US means you're damn poor, $5/day you're probably homeless. At Indonesia you won't be rich or anything near it, but at least you will be able to keep a life.
Set it against a fiat value is senseless!

Global market goods aren't essential, many can choose to opt them out without significant lifestyle loss, or no loss at all.
To keep this up, help on stop Monsanto. That can be a disaster, by removing differences within essential goods without level wages.

twiifm

hero member

Activity: 784

Merit: 500

Quote from: BCEmporium on September 04, 2014, 07:20:50 PM

I never said 30 USD shouldn't be considered poverty... but on some regions can actually do the basic living with it.
I said poverty is relative and has a broad meaning. I see way too many people, outside the 3rd World mostly, complaint about poverty when the last thing a normal person would call them is "poor". Sort of "I can't buy a iPhone 6 so I'm poor" kind of mindset.

Strawman about iphones

The official poverty line is those who earn less than $1.25 a day. . regardless if people can get by on this they are considered poor

And no, most prices dont adapt only cost of labor. If products are foreign the prices are same

BCEmporium

legendary

Activity: 1218

Merit: 1000

I never said 30 USD shouldn't be considered poverty... but on some regions can actually do the basic living with it.
I said poverty is relative and has a broad meaning. I see way too many people, outside the 3rd World mostly, complaint about poverty when the last thing a normal person would call them is "poor". Sort of "I can't buy a iPhone 6 so I'm poor" kind of mindset.

Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 16. (Read 30782 times)