• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Does capitalism force a percentage of a countries population into poverty?>

  • Yes

    Votes: 13 52.0%
  • No

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • Not Sure

    Votes: 1 4.0%

  • Total voters
    25
We are not talking about you in your lily white world. We're talking about the people in central Africa who make roughly a dollar a day. The majority of these people may 3-7$ a month in order to send their children to a private school, despite the existence of a free public school.

Most people in Central Africa who send their kids to a private school really have no choice but to send kids to these 'private schools'. Most public schools in Africa( and I know this for a fact as I have seen them myself) are situated in major metropolitan centers and not in rural areas where over 60% of the continent lives. In Central Africa the urbanization levels go down to 10%-25% of the population so this becomes even more untenable. Your argument is flawed.

On a side note: The actual price range for these schools is more like $1.50 to $7 a month depending on the facility. You find they're usually somewhere in the $2-$3 range. Either way public 'free' schools end up costing about the same. In Africa as 'private schools' is just another word for unqualified people teaching kids in dirty little huts that are accessible only to a few villages in a region. It's not that people send their kids to private schools because they're better, they send them there because they really have choice but to. Most people don't have the money to send their kids to the 'public schools' in the cities.
 
Last edited:
Who would have thought that these people making a dollar a day are spending 3-7$ a month to send their kids to a PRIVATE (for-profit) school?

Oh good lord, yes... here are how many people in Africa actually send their kids to school:

NAZ FOUNDATION

The percentage of kids out of school ages 12-14 is about 26% and it almost doubles to 40% for age group 15-17. This is a frightening statistics that's killing developing countries; almost 50% of SSS (High School) students are not in school. The most disturbing part of this, is that most of the student's have never stepped foot in a school.

When you look at that number at compare it to a developed nation you see the huge disparity and the need for intervention. In contrast, according to the US Census Bureau the percentage of 12-15years old not in school is less than 2% while the percentage of 16-17years old not in school is about 6%.

Education is the key for stability and progress in developing countries. While efforts on other humanitarian causes are needed in these regions, it's essential we focus on education. Education is the key to empowerment and also will be the key to sustained growth in all of these regions.

childlabour_activity_1.jpg


Again, the connection between daily survival and education can't be ignored in poor countries who practive capitalism.

Childinfo.org: Statistics by Area - Child labour - Child labour and education

Although many children manage to combine work and school attendance, there is a clear trade-off between the two activities. The following graph plots the child labour and school attendance rates in 18 African countries. In countries with a high share of child labourers, school attendance tends to be low. At the extreme ends of the distribution are Swaziland, with a school attendance rate of 78 per cent and a child labour rate of 10 per cent, and Niger, with a school attendance rate of 30 per cent and a child labour rate of 72 per cent.

Your knee-jerk reaction to what is a fact is nothing more than a sign of the blind worship some people have of the 'free market'. As I said, somebody needs to be poor in order for some to get commodities.
 
Most people in Central Africa who send their kids to a private school really have no choice but to send kids to these 'private schools'. Most public schools in Africa( and I know this for a fact as I have seen them myself) are situated in major metropolitan centers and not in rural areas where over 60% of the continent lives. In Central Africa the urbanization levels go down to 10%-25% of the population so this becomes even more untenable. Your argument is flawed.

On a side note: The actual price range for these schools is more like $1.50 to $7 a month depending on the facility. You find they're usually somewhere in the $2-$3 range. Either way public 'free' schools end up costing about the same. In Africa as 'private schools' is just another word for unqualified people teaching kids in dirty little huts that are accessible only to a few villages in a region. It's not that people send their kids to private schools because they're better, they send them there because they really have choice but to. Most people don't have the money to send their kids to the 'public schools' in the cities.

I didn't make an argument. I made a statement, which is based on documented research. Read The Beautiful Tree: A Journey into How the World's Poorest are Educating Themselves.

The argument I would make, based on conclusions made in the research cited above, is that these private schools do far better in their learning methods versus the public schools. But that's not so surprising. That scenario is true whether we're discussing people living in Ghana or people living in the United States. The private sector is ALWAYS better.
 
Oh good lord, yes... here are how many people in Africa actually send their kids to school:

NAZ FOUNDATION



childlabour_activity_1.jpg


Again, the connection between daily survival and education can't be ignored in poor countries who practive capitalism.

Childinfo.org: Statistics by Area - Child labour - Child labour and education



Your knee-jerk reaction to what is a fact is nothing more than a sign of the blind worship some people have of the 'free market'. As I said, somebody needs to be poor in order for some to get commodities.

It's called the zero-sum theory and it's about as dated as the flat-earth theory.
 
Just curious of everyones opinions of the "Western Influence" and what your thoughts on a capitalism form of society are?

Please explain why you like it or dislike it and if you have any better ideas on how to govern a country please elaborate...

I don't believe there has even been a country were the previous economic system was replaced by capitalism that the level of poverty has not been reduced. India as an example, China as another.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.

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:
I would like to OP to define capitalism. If you already have please provide the post number, thanks.
 
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

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.

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.

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%.
 
"Poverty" is a relative term, so no.
 
Back
Top Bottom