Pages:
Author

Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 37. (Read 30782 times)

sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
There's no perfect solution. No economical system will eradicate poverty.
But I believe capitalism is the best solution we have so far.

Agreed. We can however lessen the severity with sound currency and truly free markets.
hero member
Activity: 490
Merit: 500
There's no perfect solution. No economical system will eradicate poverty.
But I believe capitalism is the best solution we have so far.
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
The best solution is Economic freedom and a system that encourages innovation and entrepreunariat and that is best achieve with a Free Market
After some point in the near future, the terms "innovation" and "free market" will be mutually exclusive!  Wink Grin
legendary
Activity: 1918
Merit: 1018
The best solution is Economic freedom and a system that encourages innovation and entrepreunariat and that is best achieve with a Free Market

https://www.youtube.com/user/SchiffReport
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
Capitalism drives innovation. Even under the current crony capitalism system we are seeing massive innovation. A truly free market would see incredible progress.   
Innovation is an ambiguous term! As I wrote in previous post, product and process innovation have opposite effects on capitalist society.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
Capitalism can not continue to exist because in today's age we have automation. And automation creates poverty. Must find a new model. Perhaps an anarchist model, or a gift based economy, or a model based on Silvio Gesell s ideas.

Automation lowers opportunity cost and allows us to focus on other pursuits. Economies change and people adapt.
Capitalism can only continue functioning if rate of product innovation (creation of new consumer product classes like flying cars) will outpace rate of process innovation (automation). This is known as "Luddite fallacy", however it is not a law of physics so can break away any time. If governments won't prepare to this moment, capitalism will be destroyed through bloody revolution instead of peaceful transition.

Capitalism drives innovation. Even under the current crony capitalism system we are seeing massive innovation. A truly free market would see incredible progress.   
legendary
Activity: 1582
Merit: 1002
Capitalism can not continue to exist because in today's age we have automation. And automation creates poverty. Must find a new model. Perhaps an anarchist model, or a gift based economy, or a model based on Silvio Gesell s ideas.

Automation lowers opportunity cost and allows us to focus on other pursuits. Economies change and people adapt.
Capitalism can only continue functioning if rate of product innovation (creation of new consumer product classes like flying cars) will outpace rate of process innovation (automation). This is known as "Luddite fallacy", however it is not a law of physics so can break away any time. If governments won't prepare to this moment, capitalism will be destroyed through bloody revolution instead of peaceful transition.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
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?
Neither can, but capitalism has a better chance As a society, we first need to expel the myth that poverty can be eradicated. We can prevent people from starving, which can be done in a Capitalist society, like the US, but there is a paradox that prevents poverty ending. If everyone has a good amount of money, prices go up, and those with the least amount of money are impoverished. The only to that solution is Communism, which is a disaster in its own right.
What makes Capitalism so beautiful is that to get really rich, you have to enrich others. It is almost impossible in a Capitalist society to achieve success without contributing to society.

If we have a level playing field the value for value dynamic can solve a lot of problems. Right now we have a few people getting a lot of value for no return due to crony capitalism. In a real free market the bad actors get weeded out.
sr. member
Activity: 994
Merit: 441
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?
Neither can, but capitalism has a better chance As a society, we first need to expel the myth that poverty can be eradicated. We can prevent people from starving, which can be done in a Capitalist society, like the US, but there is a paradox that prevents poverty ending. If everyone has a good amount of money, prices go up, and those with the least amount of money are impoverished. The only to that solution is Communism, which is a disaster in its own right.
What makes Capitalism so beautiful is that to get really rich, you have to enrich others. It is almost impossible in a Capitalist society to achieve success without contributing to society.
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
Well, I think neither of capitalism or socialism can be ultimate solution to poverty.. Firstly, we need to expel the fact that poverty can be eradicated.. I guess poverty can never be removed..
People say that Capitalism emphasis on superiority, and thus creates inequality in the society.. True but then it is also inspires one to improve..
Which are today's greatest nations? US, China, France, England, Rome, Greece, and the list goes on and on.. And then these are not only the greatest nations, but they also have the wealthiest population also.. Is there anything common to them? Simply, Capitalism !!
Yes, you are right. One of the main reason the communist countries (Republic of China & Soviet Russia, etc) changed to capitalism was because of the lack of incentive to progress and develop the country!
This is very easy to understand. Imagine you are a hard worker and you are getting paid the same as your co-worker who is very lazy. Pretty soon, you will lose the motivation to work hard also since your hard work is not being rewarded.
But the problem now is, are hard workers being rewarded enough in a capitalistic system? Because time and again we have seen employers who keep making bigger profits because of their employee's hard work but do not attempt to raise their employee's salaries.

Do you think the wealth in a company should be more evenly divided?
legendary
Activity: 1522
Merit: 1000
www.bitkong.com
The purchasing power of the dollar has increased substantially over the past 3 decades without massive inflation.

Take the iPhone for example, today the general public can purchase an iPhone for a few hundred dollars. 30 years ago a computer with the same processing power would cost the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars at the very least.

In the US there are also a number of social programs (food stamps, unemployment, EITC, welfare) that help people that technically are in poverty (defined by their pretax income from working) really don't live in poverty as they receive a large amount of benefits from the government. These programs do generally cause people to live in near poverty (but not in poverty), but spend much more then they earn (by spending their benefits from social programs).

The above social programs cause people to live just above poverty, while barely working (if at all). The above social programs are essentially socialism.

It is clear that socialism is not the answer to poverty.

I don't see what technology has to do with it considering these are economical systems
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 506
Electronics may be cheaper but the basics continue to be more expensive and unaffordable.  The trend of people in their 20s, living with pension age parents, is a relatively new phenomenon in North America and Australia. 

In my instance, where a starter home in my city goes for $1.2+ million, my hand has been forced and I have given up on any prospects of owning real estate let alone having the space for a family.  (which goes back to an earlier post about declining fertility rates).  People still want kids but they don't want to have them in basement rentals or shoe box condos. 

At least the Medieval Serf had his own straw hut and a big field for all the kids.  Grin

Poverty is ultimately the result of greed, imho.  For someone to live a middle upper class or a upper class lifestyle, someone has to suffer to make it happen.



sr. member
Activity: 266
Merit: 250
The purchasing power of the dollar has increased substantially over the past 3 decades without massive inflation.

Take the iPhone for example, today the general public can purchase an iPhone for a few hundred dollars. 30 years ago a computer with the same processing power would cost the equivalent of tens of thousands of dollars at the very least.

In the US there are also a number of social programs (food stamps, unemployment, EITC, welfare) that help people that technically are in poverty (defined by their pretax income from working) really don't live in poverty as they receive a large amount of benefits from the government. These programs do generally cause people to live in near poverty (but not in poverty), but spend much more then they earn (by spending their benefits from social programs).

The above social programs cause people to live just above poverty, while barely working (if at all). The above social programs are essentially socialism.

It is clear that socialism is not the answer to poverty.
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.


Finally! Somebody who understands.  Smiley


Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)
Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Haha that's a very funny thing to ask on this forum, not sure if you did it to prove a point :)I agree with Azwarel, true, free capitalism might never have been tried on a big scale before. Being from Sweden, a socialist-ish country, I sometimes hear people refer to US as a extreme capitalism, but that's not true at all. Removing the governments power over currency is key to create true capitalism. Thanks to Bitcoin we have a unique opportunity to create a better world with more power to to people and less to corrupt governments.


Exactly. We are far from a truly capitalist free market. We just call it that to make ourselves feel better or worse depending on your perspective. 
sr. member
Activity: 406
Merit: 250
Capitalism can not continue to exist because in today's age we have automation. And automation creates poverty. Must find a new model. Perhaps an anarchist model, or a gift based economy, or a model based on Silvio Gesell s ideas.

Automation lowers opportunity cost and allows us to focus on other pursuits. Economies change and people adapt.
sr. member
Activity: 470
Merit: 250

Because, what you guys call capitalism, is not capitalism. The US is not capitalism since the creation of income tax, the FED, the anti-trust laws, the 60's war on poverty welfare programs, etc. And Saudi Arabia is a monarchy, where the ruler can just seize you if he wants.

Capitalism based on voluntary exchange of goods and services at the market produced by men in competition free of coercion, with private property and personal liberty at the absolute basic right.
Show me how can people in the US choose not to use state provided services, and in turn not to pay taxes, like a voluntary trade with companies, and i say you have capitalism in the US.
Show me a real private business forces you to buy its product. If it can than it is not a private business in capitalist terms.


Finally! Somebody who understands.  Smiley

Thx Neofelis!

I have been reading this forum for months, and, actually reading your posts was the reason i registered! I can finally talk with someone from the "same page". :-)
Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

Haha that's a very funny thing to ask on this forum, not sure if you did it to prove a point :)I agree with Azwarel, true, free capitalism might never have been tried on a big scale before. Being from Sweden, a socialist-ish country, I sometimes hear people refer to US as a extreme capitalism, but that's not true at all. Removing the governments power over currency is key to create true capitalism. Thanks to Bitcoin we have a unique opportunity to create a better world with more power to to people and less to corrupt governments.
newbie
Activity: 40
Merit: 0
Capitalism can not continue to exist because in today's age we have automation. And automation creates poverty. Must find a new model. Perhaps an anarchist model, or a gift based economy, or a model based on Silvio Gesell s ideas.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 500
sr. member
Activity: 401
Merit: 280
Additionally, the entire western world is facing a common problem. The fertility rate is too low. More people are dying than are being born. This means the income from the working age people is shrinking relative to the old non-working people who also happen to be the biggest drain on public medical resources. It's the perfect economic storm, failing demographics for the economic system we use coupled with a breakdown in work discipline and, for europe, massive immigration which makes it even harder to find jobs and puts further strain on the welfare system.

Yes, while what You say is a 100% correct, i do not think it is good or bad. It is just a fact :-)
Actually, we should be happy, that there are fewer of us. More resources/space etc per person. The problem as You mentioned is the overblown social welfare system of medicare and retirement checks. People do not know, but retirement pension was started after the II. world war, it is no more than a 60 years of welfare program, centrally planned, which means it was doomed to fail! If someone could save that money for themselves what they now pay for retirement money to the State, they would have a pension, bam! Unless they are stupid, and do not make savings.
But why should the rest of us pay for someone who was not able to take care of himself???

Also, now we have bitcoin, which as a non-inflation currency, you can actually save for the future :-)
It's bad. There has never been an example in history of a culture recovering from the current conditions. We are looking at an extinction event for northern and western europe over the next 50 or so years. As the native population dwindles and immigrants keep coming, there is a real risk that we will be displaced. The states have similar but slightly different problems.

I understand fully. The question here i think we both agree is: can we "pass" the cultural heritage, the civilizational code to whomever moves here or not. Are our values remain, live through or not. It is a very valid and serious question!!
I am not anti immigration, given, they accept the basic rules of the local. This of course i would do if i were to move into their culture, but since i do not agree with many of the immigrant's values i do not go there. I hope this was not racist or alike, i acknowledge the different cultures, but i maintain my right to choose which iI want to embrace!
sr. member
Activity: 401
Merit: 280
Pages:
Jump to: