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 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 193

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

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Timbuktu
    Last Seen
    01-30-12 @ 08:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    2,730

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    Really, so people wouldn't get jealous of immaterial things like looks, love, intellect, etc.
    Don't bet on it.

    What you're proposing is utopian communism.
    Someone will always want more of something and you can't control it all.
    You bring some good points....I was focused on monetary values....

  2. #12
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,039

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post


    Ok either the kid in Bangladesh gets nothing or he gets $20 a month.
    You make the choice as to which is superior.
    And yet that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Please step out of your capitalist cheer leading clothes for ONE SECOND and realize what is being asked. Does free trade force a percentage of the population to live in poverty? Being paid $20 a month does not mean you get out of poverty. It means you get just enough to feed yourself. Nothing else. And that is by 'conservative' standards of what you'd need to feed yourself in impoverished countries. Which is about $1 a day but lets say he makes $30 instead of $20. Now what does working just so you can feed yourself mean to you? It means you are stuck in a cycle of trying to accumulate just enough wealth to survive. Thus my argument that capitalism does force some people to stay poor. Obviously if you only make enough money through the day to eat, you're not going to want to go to school or get a higher certification because you simply don't have the time. That is what is being argued here.

    Education is meaningless really because people will seek the maximum education they need to meet their motivation level.
    Just giving more education does not equate to ending poverty.
    That is so ridiculous it's not even funny. The formula is very simple: higher level of education gives one more opportunities and thus more money.







    Now, you're welcome to bring up every single exception you believe disproves this rule but would you say that on average a person with a bachelors degree is very likely to have less money than some high school drop out? I highly doubt that. I think the guy with a bachelors is going to have more money 9 times out of 10.

    Which people are living in more poverty because of capitalism?
    Most of Africa, the non-coastal areas of China, the majority of India etc. Seriously. Travel the world a little.
    Last edited by Hatuey; 09-25-10 at 04:57 AM.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  3. #13
    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 Hatuey View Post
    And yet that has nothing to do with what is being discussed. Please step out of your capitalist cheer leading clothes for ONE SECOND and realize what is being said. Does free trade force a percentage of the population to live in poverty. Being paid $20 a month does not mean you get out of poverty. It means you get just enough to feed yourself. Nothing else. And that is by 'conservative' standards of what you'd need to feed yourself in impoverished countries. Which is about $1 a day but lets say he makes $30 instead of $20. Now what does working just so you can feed yourself mean to you? It means you are stuck in a cycle of trying to accumulate just enough wealth to survive. Thus my argument that capitalism does force some people to stay poor. Obviously if you only make enough money through the day to eat, you're not going to want to go to school or get a higher certification because you simply don't have the time. That is what is being argued here.
    So if these capitalist jobs do not exist, what will these people do to feed themselves?
    Be subsistence farmers?
    They could do that now, but why aren't they?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That is so ridiculous it's not even funny. The formula is very simple: higher level of education > more opportunities > more money

    Education does not necessarily increase your earning ability.
    This recession has more white collar workers than blue collar workers.
    Has their education hurt or helped them?

    What has essentially happened in the U.S. is that we over educate, the high school diploma is almost absolutely worthless for those in blue collar jobs.
    That level of education is only necessary for white collar workers, yet those people still need more education because of the glut of graduates.

    Education does not matter, on it's own, without a capitalist economy.
    The most educated person in the world with no way to feed himself, is still poor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Most of Africa, the non-coastal areas of China, the majority of India etc. Seriously. Travel the world a little.
    Why is it the fault of capitalism?
    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

  4. #14
    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 creativedreams View Post
    You bring some good points....I was focused on monetary values....
    People are not perfectly rational, probably won't ever be like that.
    Even if everyone had all their needs met, there are still things for people to get jealous over.
    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. #15
    Sage
    Hatuey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    42,039

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

    It's tedious to argue with somebody who simply doesn't understand the very basics of an argument.

    Quote Originally Posted by Harry Guerrilla View Post
    So if these capitalist jobs do not exist, what will these people do to feed themselves?
    AGAIN: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION BEING ASKED.

    THE QUESTION BEING ASKED CONCERNS WHETHER CAPITALISM FORCES A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE TO LIVE POVERTY.

    As I have already argued, it does. It doesn't matter what else they could be doing. What matters is the system already in place. As it is, capitalism does mean some people necessarily have to be poor so that others can enjoy cheap commodities.

    Education does not necessarily increase your earning ability.
    Really? Is that what every chart which shows the connection between education and earnings show? Interesting.

    This recession has more white collar workers than blue collar workers.
    Has their education hurt or helped them?
    That is entirely different issue related to job safety. Not whether education and how much you make are related.

    What has essentially happened in the U.S. is that we over educate, the high school diploma is almost absolutely worthless for those in blue collar jobs.
    That level of education is only necessary for white collar workers, yet those people still need more education because of the glut of graduates.

    Education does not matter, on it's own, without a capitalist economy.
    The most educated person in the world with no way to feed himself, is still poor.
    That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're discussing whether a person with an education is more likely to be paid more. The truth is that this is true. Regardless of how a blue collar or white collar fare in a recession, at the end of the day - once the recession is over - the white collar will still make more money.

    Why is it the fault of capitalism?
    I'm serious now, pay attention and put the how to be a Libertarian book down:

    1. For a capitalist, it is necessary for goods to be produced cheaply in order to make a profit.

    2. For capitalists in the real world, this means that they have to go to places where people are desperate for jobs and offer them the bare minimum they need to survive. Now, I don't know if you've ever been poor but it's been my experience that the majority of people living in poverty have an incredibly hard time getting out of it even in in present day America. So how does this relate to the issue being asked?

    3. If a person is only making enough money to live on the daily, it means they do not accumulate wealth. Which means they don't pass wealth to their children. Which means the poverty cycle continues.

    Finally, this is the reason union movements began in the first place. Capitalists of the late 19th and early 20th century had absolutely no problem making people work in squalid conditions and paying the bare minimum. If one complained? One was fired. That was it. What has happened is that now factories with horrible conditions, cheap labor and overworking bosses have been moved to the 3rd world. Only in places like Africa, complaining might mean getting your hand chopped off. That is why it's the fault of capitalism that some people must remain poor for others to enjoy commodities.
    I refuse to accept the view that mankind is so tragically bound to the starless midnight of racism and war that the bright daybreak of peace and brotherhood can never become a reality. - MLK

  6. #16
    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 Hatuey View Post
    It's tedious to argue with somebody who simply doesn't understand the very basics of an argument.

    AGAIN: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION BEING ASKED.

    THE QUESTION BEING ASKED CONCERNS WHETHER CAPITALISM FORCES A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE TO LIVE POVERTY.

    As I have already argued, it does. It doesn't matter what else they could be doing. What matters is the system already in place. As it is, capitalism does mean some people necessarily have to be poor so that others can enjoy cheap commodities.
    You can't answer my question can you?
    It certainly does matter, if that child is not working for $20 a month, what would the child be doing to provide for himself, in absence of the capitalist job?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Really? Is that what every chart which shows the connection between education and earnings show? Interesting.
    What happens when everyone is the U.S. has a bachelors degree, masters degree or doctorate?
    We will still need these highly educated people to, pick up garbage, scrub floors, wash windows, work as laborers in manufacturing.
    Will their education be necessary to do these things?


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That is entirely different issue related to job safety. Not whether education and how much you make are related.
    To get that job they had to have an education, yet they have been laid off in greater numbers.
    So their earning potential has been diminished.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    That has absolutely nothing to do with what we're discussing. We're discussing whether a person with an education is more likely to be paid more. The truth is that this is true. Regardless of how a blue collar or white collar fare in a recession, at the end of the day - once the recession is over - the white collar will still make more money.
    On average, yes.
    You say more education has brought people out of poverty.
    How much education though?

    You blame capitalism for poverty, yet these jobs that require this education would not exist, without capitalism.
    What is your solution?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    I'm serious now, pay attention and put the how to be a Libertarian book down:

    1. For a capitalist, it is necessary for goods to be produced cheaply in order to make a profit.
    That's not true.
    For someone to make a profit, the good must be produced and meet the cost/benefit ratio of the consumer.
    "Cheaply" is subjective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    2. For capitalists in the real world, this means that they have to go to places where people are desperate for jobs and offer them the bare minimum they need to survive. Now, I don't know if you've ever been poor but it's been my experience that the majority of people living in poverty have an incredibly hard time getting out of it even in in present day America. So how does this relate to the issue being asked?
    Since your 1st point is wrong, your second point isn't entirely true either.
    You still haven't told me what these people would be doing, absent the capitalist job.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    3. If a person is only making enough money to live on the daily, it means they do not accumulate wealth. Which means they don't pass wealth to their children. Which means the poverty cycle continues.
    Not true either.
    Some people have risen up from poverty because on new economic opportunity.
    In fact whole nations have been brought up based on this concept and not because of prior wealth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hatuey View Post
    Finally, this is the reason union movements began in the first place. Capitalists of the late 19th and early 20th century had absolutely no problem making people work in squalid conditions and paying the bare minimum. If one complained? One was fired. That was it. What has happened is that now factories with horrible conditions, cheap labor and overworking bosses have been moved to the 3rd world. Only in places like Africa, complaining might mean getting your hand chopped off. That is why it's the fault of capitalism that some people must remain poor for others to enjoy commodities.
    Yet during that same time life expectancy was increasing.
    How were these people worse off than before?

    You haven't proven this at all, you're just ignorantly ranting.
    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

  7. #17
    Equal Opportunity Hater
    obvious Child's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    0.0, -2.3 on the Political Compass
    Last Seen
    12-09-14 @ 11:36 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    19,883

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

    Hatuey, the Soviet Union educated its people relatively well. And most of them during 'communism' were by most measures super poor. Including their nuclear physicists.

    I agree with Harry in that without a method of utilizing one's education, it really doesn't matter how educate you are.
    "If your opponent is of choleric temperament, seek to irritate him." - Sun Tzu

  8. #18
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Ft. Campbell, KY
    Last Seen
    12-31-14 @ 08:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    12,177

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

    I think looking back on history that every system and government has had poverty within it, of course its relative as being in poverty in the US or Europe generally isn't like poverty in Africa or elsewhere. But poverty will always exist as someone has to be below the average income unless everyone is AT the average, in which case you'd be in a perfect communist society.

  9. #19
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

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

    Without a doubt capitalism create poverty, but it creates less poverty than any other system that I am aware of.

    However, the simple fact is that the market will always price certain jobs very cheaply, which will cause suffering. This is why we need government.

  10. #20
    Educator
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Seen
    08-02-11 @ 10:43 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    915

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

    Quote Originally Posted by creativedreams View Post
    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...
    Capitalism rightly understood is not a zero-sum game. Its defining characteristic is that it provides economic opportunity for the masses.

    Many Westerners today, especially conservatives, are under the misconception that the market economy, the profit motive, and private ownership of property constitute a capitalistic system. This is an incomplete understanding, born out of the Cold War, which emphasizes the differences between capitalism and communism. It says nothing of the differences between capitalist and pre-capitalist societies, which shared all of these characteristics. To the extent that it allows unfettered exploitation, this version of the market economy does doom a percentage of the population to poverty.

    If we want long-term prosperity, the solution is neither to blame capitalism for our problems nor to defend existing forms of exploitation on the grounds that other forms are worse. Rather, it's to educate ourselves on the history and significance of capitalism and to work for a society that's both free and just.

Page 2 of 20 FirstFirst 123412 ... 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
  •