Topic: Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism? - page 4. (Read 30782 times)

Absolutely!

Austrian economics WORKS. (unlike Keynesian economics)
Here is a short video, actually a rap, that condenses a semester of ECON 101 into a song, and is quite entertaining;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0nERTFo-Sk

Another great book is F. A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom".

Socialism was invalidated by Ludwig Von Mises in 1920 in his book Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth, it's 2014, almost 100 years later.

Dear socialists, learn to fucking read.

I disagree.  Socialism has NEVER been a practical solution to poverty.  In fact, it makes EVERYONE equally poor in practice.

I think Capitalism (which is a term created by Karl Marx to describe the free market), if it is to work, REQUIRES morality, and charity, and can very much be a horrible system at it's worst, however there is nothing that comes close to it at it's best.

And Socialism at it's worst is pure hell on earth.   At it's best, socialism cannot compete, and is incredibly inefficient, as well as inhumane.   Anyone who saw Stalin's USSR, or Mao's China, or Pol Pots Cambodia, or Kim Il Sung's North Korea will attest to the lack of ANY freedoms, and rule by terror.  

It is ironic that the system of Socialism claims to work "in the name of the people", never seems to fulfill that promise.  In fact, Socialism's security is diametrically opposed to, and opposite of Capitalism's freedom, in a zero sum equation;  The more of one, the less of the other.   And the worlds worst atrocities have been done under socialist pogroms, upwards of 40 million innocent Soviet civilians under Stalin's purges (did you see the Russian movie I posted above The Checkist?) and upwards of 60 million Chinese in Mao's cannibalism in the Great Famine and cultural revolution.

Given the choice, I would rather live in absolute freedom, risking anarchy, than the jack boot of big government on my neck.

Socialism has been around for over 100 years now, and it has never worked.

NEVER.

there may be other systems that can cope with poverty, the Islamic system, the system of charity, which is between the rich subsidize the poor with charity system, in Islam, there are the rights of the poor in the wealth of the rich, so that every rich person is required to spend zakat amounting 2.5% ...
This case needs to be tried as a solution to overcome poverty in the world ... good luck ... 

I think that China going from a Communism economic (very close to socialism economy) to a partial capitalism economy is proof that this is true and that capitalism is much better then socialism (aka Obamaism). The standard of living in China has increased greatly since they have become a partial capitalistic economy 

"Bill never realized that sex was the cause of it all." - Google it.

I think capitalism is the root of all evil and that being said i will say socialism is the solution of poverty .

Actually the quotes as Marx defined are;

Capitalism: Privately owned means of production.

Socialism/fascism/Nazi: Government controls the privately owned means of production.

Communism:  Government owns and controls the means of production.

Not mentioned by Marx is "Crony Capitalism", which falls after capitalism and prior to Socialism, where government and private industry conspire against their enemies, and with disregard to the free market.  
-This is where we are today-.

The bottom line is either you love freedom, or you will sacrifice freedom for social security, or socialism/communism.  Upwards of 100 million civilian deaths in the 20th century will attest to this, as per "The Little Black Book Of Communism".

An interesting, yet horrifying film the Russians themselves made after the Cold War is "The Checkist", which I can barely watch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_RQVSHfuPCQ

It should be required, as should Alexander Solgenitzen The Gulag Archipelago.

Despite the 38 pages of why capitalism is a solution to all problem in all times.

Incorrect.

Communism == Collective control == No trading partner == No exchange == No price discovery == No profit == No way to effectively allocate capital and resources == Gross allocation == Shit

Crap like food? Crap like medicine? Crap like the technology you just used the write that crap statement with?

In the pursuit of wealth a capitalist is able to allocate resources towards the greater wants of a society, for in a free market if profit is supernormal in any area then the product of the area is under produced and the supernormal profit indicates that resources should be reallocated to this area.

Key idea: Profit is the signal to entrepreneurs that resources should be allocated towards or away from any given area.

Socialism destroys wealth until everyone is at the level of the least common denominators level of poverty.

Capitalism creates wealth and gives people with interests and motivation the ability to separate themselves from the least common denominators.

This isn't a nuanced definition like others have offered, but here you go. I'd also say these definitions are more about these systems as they are colloquially understood rather than their pure ideological form (which would entail socialism having a potentially government controlled economy).

Socialism is the cure for both poverty and wealth. 

Capitalism: a countries trade and industry are privately controlled

Socialism: a countries trade and industry are controlled by the community as a whole

Communism: a countries trade and industry are publicly owned and there is no class system leading to equal profit for all

All of them are shit and do not offer the solutions we need in our times.

As long as there is money in the world there will always be a poor and rich. We built this system so expect it will go on through many yrs

We are in an eco system and humans are in this eco system; we are not bad for our planet and human is important

The market is the most efficient way of finding a price and works without coercion, efficient and free markets create a lot of value and save millions

Both private enterprise and communism are materialistic methodologies to trading and lending. Commercial concerns is a component that compensates certain parts of human conduct more than others. Putting realism at the middle of our lives does little to enhance the personal satisfaction (as far as bliss) or the wellbeing of our planet.

The market brought 1Billion of chinese out of extreme poverty, you can't disregard that and created awesome lifes for tens of millions in the States, the trend reverses as the State started growing too much a few decades ago

"With a market you have lower prices [on crap], competition [for crap], lots of [innovative crap] and with socialism you have [communism], higher prices [all crap] and very low innovation [in crap]."

You missed that since wealth is the primary concern of both systems, they both falter in pursuing the ends of wealth (think: "quality of life" [as opposed to "standard of living"]).