Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 39. (Read 30791 times)

Why does it matter if some people are filthy rich, if the "masses" are still doing better than before the filthy rich emerged? I just wonder why does it matter if someone doing a 1000 times better, if i can live a comfortable and peaceful life. Does it hurt? Like it is a physical pain? Most people do not compare themselves with billionares. They compare themselves and their wealth status with others in the similar job/neighbor. The mantra of "but they are richhhh!" is i think is just a theoretical pure envy.

That managed boom was pure luck of the fact they were based on a smaller scale. You take socialism now and you won't have filthy rich people, which let's be real that could be anyone of us here.

Well, if You check the history of the US for example, till 1860, the US dollar issued by government was only ~4% of the total currency used in the territory of the US. The rest were all privately issued currencies and the economy managed to boom. So national fiat money - especially fiat money based on debt - is a very new thing which existed for no more than a 100 years on average. People tend to forget history about the born of banks "banca", which were at the beginning only changed the so many privately/county issued currencies.

So capitalism has never existed before?

Hello? Bitcoin? We issue it? :-) I mean that is the whole point!

Ok, so no government involved in commerce, so who issues the money?

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". :-)

Finally! Somebody who understands. 

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.

[/quote]
I tend to agree. If Capitalism was about making life better, then why isn't Saudi Arabia the center of invention, innovation, and progressive industries?
[/quote]


Is Saudi Arabia a capitalist society? I seem to remember it is a kingdom.

I like your "circle tent" analogy!
Also, people forget that most of the wealth of the rich are goods which has infinitesimal smaller use value than exchange value. Like a Ferrari, it might cost hundred thousands of dollars, but basically it is just a 5 year's old Fords in use value. So the rich ain't that rich at all as most people think!

"What does Paris Hilton produce?"

More than you might think. I think she has some perfume thing going on plus wherever she goes, people follow. I'm sure nightclub owners and restauranteurs enjoy her in their establishments.

Ok, she doesn't really contribute directly to the GDP,  but she is very effective at taking her family's wealth and distributing it around.  This is why in a generation or two, being a Hilton won't mean quite as much. Same thing as being a Kennedy or a Vanderbuilt today. Wealth gets distributed.  Few people have the talent to expand or even hold onto inherited wealth. It gets distributed to the economy as the generations pass.

To try and take it by using the force of government is wrong, immoral, and leads to tyranny.

IMHO

I tend to agree. If Capitalism was about making life better, then why isn't Saudi Arabia the center of invention, innovation, and progressive industries?

Extremes of Socialism (USSR) or Capitalism (USA) rarely last for more than 3 generations. USSR went down first and the US is now on the 3rd gen, nigh last, of it's extreme version of Capitalism. A blend of the two, Socialist Capitalism, may be a stable form that is yet to be tried in earnest however it is being dabbled with in China.

Fundamentally, capitalism is curbed by maximum earning limits for companies or individuals, thereby trying to avoid the pure capitalism motto of 'greed (at the expense of everyone else) is good' whilst simultaneously avoiding the socialist syndrome of 'living of other peoples money'.

Thoughts?

Circus tent analogy to explain Capitalism.


If the economy is a circus tent and wealth were represented by the height of the tent. Successful people would act as tent poles driving up the tent all around them.  The greater number of wealthy people, the more the average person would be elevated. If there were only one rich person, we'd all better hope he'd be rich enough to lift the entire tent.   There's definitely income inequality but to try and correct it would lower everybody. Never mind the countless violations of individual rights that would be necessary to "equalize" income.

There is no right to equal outcome. There is even no right to equal opportunity. There is only a right to freedom and what you make of it.

True but I don't have a convenient video for Psy's Gangam style
That said the DPRK is aware of it so wouldn't mind some New Zealanders making another propaganda video on that topic

It's not just North Korea. Psy's Gangam Style video mocks Western influence of excess.

Propoganda has a great part on Paris Hilton
This Narcissistic Parasite is Paris Hilton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kfiAobcGow

Take a look

Solution to poverty are not capitalism but are not also socialism

First of all, you have to define "poverty". If a single person on the planet has 1 cent less than everyone else, then he is poorer, than the rest.

The only situation we will not have poverty if everyone is EXACTLY the same, living in the same geographical spot, eating the same food, has the same height/face/skills. That is physically, and metaphysically impossible. Ergo, equality in opportunities and outcome are also impossible. That is i think the first point where every socialists fail.

The second point socialists fail is the decentralized vs centralized argument. Think about the 10 foods you like the most. Now think about the 10 favorite clothing/cars/travel destinations, restaurants, magazines, woman/men, lake you visit etc etc.

Now, your preferences change over time, you like different things over time, some shifting rather quickly, some remain the same for long, and some are not exists at this moment, because they have not invented yet! These are basically the sum of your NEEDS, in THIS moment. Multiply this with the ever changing member of the Earth's population, given they also change their needs, the place they live, their capabilities, skills which are also changing. You now got the idea, the "map of needs for the moment".

Socialists insist, that this ever changing, unimaginable complex map of needs can be satisfied by basically just 5 guys sitting in a bureau once every week, and telling what should be built/produced, by whom, by where, by what quantity, which quality, using which technology, using resources from a 10^40 different combination which potentially changes in EVERY HOUR, and of course they have to foreseeing every invention/upgrade/new resource/weather/number of kids borning/accidents effect on the economy takes in the next day as well.

The socialist central planner therefore MUST use coercive ways to - in essence - forbid people to change their minds, to move around, to take other jobs if they want, because at the very moment a few people not acting as the plan "predicted" the whole infinitely complicated system of a planned economy collapses. That is why EVERY socialist experiment in the world had to and has to use brute force, close their economy/borders, cause otherwise people with their silly freedom will "screw up the plan" the very next day it was finished.

The results can be seen in every socialistic experiments, starts from 'Owenite community (1825–1827)' till today's Venezuelan madness. Central planning, as a hierarchical system always fail, because they can not scale!

On the other hand, in a capitalist society, which i define by "a decentralized economical and societal system based on the voluntary exchange of freely produced goods, services and resources available for men - market-, utilizing private property in a competitive system, where force is absolutely excluded by the very nature of the system", there is no council of 5 wise men to decide what are the "needs of men". Look at nature itself. The complexity is enormous, from single cell organisms, to the largest predators, the whole ecosystem utilizes every single type of energy and material resource available, and optimizes itself through evolution constantly over time.

And yet, all this complexity of nature has no orchestra, it is a decentralized system free to scale, implement any useful/alas neutral change over time. THAT, basically is the definition of market - the invisible hand - in human society! Of course since humans are conscious being, they "invented" ethics, which forbids the initiation of force, through civilization, not because we are nice, but because that is the long range rational self interest of every member of it.

But, about the poor :-)

An Indian friend of mine told me once: "thanks God we are "exploited", otherwise many of us would have just starved to death". Just look at the western world. 300 years ago the average wealth of the western populace's 99% was the very same as the rest of the world's 99%! Than industrial revolution happened (and no, this has nothing to do with colonization. The US itself was a colony, and look how that turned out to be!), and suddenly the average - even low income class citizens! - have more comfortable lives today than kings 300 years ago (running water!!, heating, plenty of cheap food, clothing, medical care, etc).

So TLDR, yes, capitalism promotes wealth creation, not equally - since we are just not equal by physical -, but in time, everyone is better of!