View Poll Results: Does capitalism force a percentage of a countries population into poverty?>

Voters
60. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    20 33.33%
  • No

    38 63.33%
  • Not Sure

    2 3.33%
Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast
Results 181 to 190 of 193

Thread: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

  1. #181
    Cheese
    Aunt Spiker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sasnakra
    Last Seen
    09-10-16 @ 06:10 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    28,433

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    The reason why it's reduced is because people who are educated are more capable of doing various business-money things like: earning more money, conceiving new business plans, making decisions towards employment . . . and so forth.

    Thus - some are then able to get theirselves out of 'poverty' - or help others out of poverty.

    But it doesn't have anything to do *with* their economic *system* - it has to do with the fact that they are plugged into the system rather than being excluded from it - meaning, they have money to spend. Might not be a lot - but it's some.
    A screaming comes across the sky.
    It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
    Pynchon - Gravity's Rainbow

  2. #182
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Consumption for the sake of consumption, is not a net good.
    If efficiency in consumption is not, at least moderately, taken into account; it can be worthless.

    Demand and production had stabilized at the lower levels, it was already set to rebound as the recession was ending/ended.
    Efficiency in consumption is a loaded term as it rarely occurs on a level in which "economists" would label efficient.

    We have to keep in mind the motivation behind such a program. Was it to induce consumption for auto's in general, or to induce consumption for a specific auto?

    Come on now, you know this time period is deflationary.
    Prices should not rise that much.
    Of course it was, but we cannot disengage the volatility of prices because a period was "generally" known to be deflationary. Consider the price of crude during this period. From an all time high of $140ish to $25 to $50 to $80. Even if price drops 50%, it will take a much higher ratio increase to hit the previous level. For example: if something has a market cost per unit of $100 and falls to a price level of $50 (50%), it will have to increase 100% in order to match the previous price level. Therefore careful consideration is needed when analyzing the derivatives of price ratios.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  3. #183
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Efficiency in consumption is a loaded term as it rarely occurs on a level in which "economists" would label efficient.

    We have to keep in mind the motivation behind such a program. Was it to induce consumption for auto's in general, or to induce consumption for a specific auto?
    But the point of the program isn't just to induce consumption while it is in effect. It is to induce consumption and correspondingly production so as to induce more consumption across the board. Was this realized?

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  4. #184
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Efficiency in consumption is a loaded term as it rarely occurs on a level in which "economists" would label efficient.

    We have to keep in mind the motivation behind such a program. Was it to induce consumption for auto's in general, or to induce consumption for a specific auto?
    It was induced to create consumption for more efficient vehicles and to stimulate some sort of economic activity.
    When the system of obtaining more efficient vehicles, is inefficient, it's pretty self defeating.

    While it did stimulate economic activity on the short term, long term it reduces the ability of others to enter the market through price increases.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Of course it was, but we cannot disengage the volatility of prices because a period was "generally" known to be deflationary. Consider the price of crude during this period. From an all time high of $140ish to $25 to $50 to $80. Even if price drops 50%, it will take a much higher ratio increase to hit the previous level. For example: if something has a market cost per unit of $100 and falls to a price level of $50 (50%), it will have to increase 100% in order to match the previous price level. Therefore careful consideration is needed when analyzing the derivatives of price ratios.
    We already know that the sale of automobiles was trickling and that the price on used vehicles would not increase as dramatically as 10%.

    If vehicles were a volatile commodity, you'd be right but they aren't.
    Even with used cars their pricing model is, usually, predictable.
    Last edited by Harry Guerrilla; 09-26-10 at 02:40 AM.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

  5. #185
    Frankernaut peepnklown's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-16-15 @ 04:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    607

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    I would like to OP to define capitalism. If you already have please provide the post number, thanks.
    'The whole universe is going to die!'

  6. #186
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    It was induced to create consumption for more efficient vehicles and to stimulate some sort of economic activity.
    When the system of obtaining more efficient vehicles, is inefficient, it's pretty self defeating.
    The bold begs the question. The program was efficient on the grounds of inducing auto sales at that particular time for fuel efficient vehicles. I am not arguing that there was not a cost to taxpayers, only that it (program and demand) greatly exceeded its expectations as another $2 billion was appropriated by the end of the month.

    While it did stimulate economic activity on the short term, long term it reduces the ability of others to enter the market through price increases.
    Static analysis is insufficient in this regard as it ignores the income and substitution effects associated with increases of demand. For example, the increased cost(s) from the program could result in greater demand for used vehicles (your second point) via substitution.

    We already know that the sale of automobiles was trickling and that the price on used vehicles would not increase as dramatically as 10%.
    That is a risky assumption. Given the headwinds facing GM and Chrysler during bankruptcy, the prices on their used products fell by the waist side as consumers were worried about specific manufacturer warranties being honored in the wake of bankruptcy (the nature of the beast). While hindsight shows us that bailouts were effective in rebuilding the companies (forcing union wage reductions), the same outcome was possible even if liquidation occurred. The government would have to simply guarantee all GM and Chrysler warranties and allow debt holders to take control (and liquidate specific assets) of the company.

    If vehicles were a volatile commodity, you'd be right but they aren't.
    Even with used cars their pricing model is, usually, predictable.
    Ceteris paribus.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  7. #187
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    But the point of the program isn't just to induce consumption while it is in effect. It is to induce consumption and correspondingly production so as to induce more consumption across the board. Was this realized?
    What do the sales numbers for these respective companies tell you? While Toyota was the biggest winner in this program, they have lost 2% market share a year later (also caused by the recalls).
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  8. #188
    Traditionalist
    phattonez's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Last Seen
    12-05-17 @ 03:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    20,072

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    What do the sales numbers for these respective companies tell you? While Toyota was the biggest winner in this program, they have lost 2% market share a year later (also caused by the recalls).
    Yes, I understand that these companies did well during this program, but where is the "economic activity" that this program was supposed to start? It seems to me that any recent success that car companies have had are because of changing their lineups, not because of cash for clunkers.

    Who shall ascend the hill of the Lord? And who shall stand in his holy place? He who has clean hands and a pure heart, who does not lift up his soul to what is false, and does not swear deceitfully. Psalm 24
    "True law is right reason in agreement with nature . . . Whoever is disobedient is fleeing from himself and denying his human nature [and] will suffer the worst penalties . . ." - Cicero

  9. #189
    I'm not-low all the time
    Kushinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    West Loop
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    16,254

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by phattonez View Post
    Yes, I understand that these companies did well during this program, but where is the "economic activity" that this program was supposed to start? It seems to me that any recent success that car companies have had are because of changing their lineups, not because of cash for clunkers.
    It is commonly referred to as the microeconomic bandwagon effect.
    It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion.
    "Wealth of Nations," Book V, Chapter II, Part II, Article I, pg.911

  10. #190
    Sage
    Harry Guerrilla's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Not affiliated with other libertarians.
    Last Seen
    09-01-17 @ 02:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,955

    Re: Does Capitalism force a percentage of the population to live in poverty?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    The bold begs the question. The program was efficient on the grounds of inducing auto sales at that particular time for fuel efficient vehicles. I am not arguing that there was not a cost to taxpayers, only that it (program and demand) greatly exceeded its expectations as another $2 billion was appropriated by the end of the month.
    Of course it was successful in stimulating short term demand.
    People were getting a huge discount on the cost of a vehicle.
    They could of probably enacted the program indefinitely, seeing similar results with a bit a trailing off as the market became saturated.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Static analysis is insufficient in this regard as it ignores the income and substitution effects associated with increases of demand. For example, the increased cost(s) from the program could result in greater demand for used vehicles (your second point) via substitution.
    Income effects have been marginal at best, only the incomes of auto workers have been stabilized or marginally increased.

    Most other people are still experiencing a crunch in personal earnings.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    That is a risky assumption. Given the headwinds facing GM and Chrysler during bankruptcy, the prices on their used products fell by the waist side as consumers were worried about specific manufacturer warranties being honored in the wake of bankruptcy (the nature of the beast). While hindsight shows us that bailouts were effective in rebuilding the companies (forcing union wage reductions), the same outcome was possible even if liquidation occurred. The government would have to simply guarantee all GM and Chrysler warranties and allow debt holders to take control (and liquidate specific assets) of the company.
    That to me seems like an opportunity more than anything else, if their products were of true quality, it would of eventually been found out.
    Undersold is temporary.

    Quote Originally Posted by Goldenboy219 View Post
    Ceteris paribus.
    Not always.
    The price of gas is largely the same on the retail level as it was then.

    Now the price of less gas efficient vehicles has experienced that largest increase in price.
    Up to 34%.
    I was discovering that life just simply isn't fair and bask in the unsung glory of knowing that each obstacle overcome along the way only adds to the satisfaction in the end. Nothing great, after all, was ever accomplished by anyone sulking in his or her misery.
    —Adam Shepard

Page 19 of 20 FirstFirst ... 917181920 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •