• 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
Because we're relying on slave labor for our manufacturing, as we discussed earlier.

Well yes exactly.

EDIT: But to make matters worse on that front. America is being locked out of manufacturing because of the law of supply and demand. Now to be cost effective you have to have low wages to compete with the slave labour in China's manufacturing industry. Consequently it produces very few jobs in the US because of extreme innovation/mechanisation which has a high start up cost. It's ether do that or.. work for the same wage as the slaves in third world countries.
 
Last edited:
The problem with this idea is that the market will always price some jobs cheaply, thereby forcing someone to be poor (even if we all had MIT quality educations and were highly motivated, someone has to take out the trash). While your statement works fairly well when talking to individuals, it does not work when you look at the system as a whole.

The assessment of everyone being educated is right.
If capitalism only produced jobs and it did not lower the cost of living, keeping people in poverty might be true.

For the notion that "capitalism creates poverty" to be true, you're going to have to show that prior to or in absence of capitalism, these people would not be impoverished.
 
Well yes exactly.

Which is not capitalism.

Look, I understand that supply and demand is the cardinal rule. If you wanted to think like one of those libertarian fundamentalists, you might even think it's the only rule. Certainly you'll hear many right-wingers talking as if "capitalism" is just a convenient shorthand for the interests of big business. But in a broader historical view, there's a lot more to it than that. A capitalistic society is, first, a society. That means everyone plays by the same rules. In a capitalist society, those rules form a coherent policy that encourages economic activism, not stagnation. A corporation, in a so-called free market, that makes its money exploiting workers on a completely uneven field doesn't qualify as any kind of society, much less a capitalist one...no matter what Karl Marx or Dick Cheney may tell you.
 
The assessment of everyone being educated is right.
If capitalism only produced jobs and it did not lower the cost of living, keeping people in poverty might be true.

For the notion that "capitalism creates poverty" to be true, you're going to have to show that prior to or in absence of capitalism, these people would not be impoverished.

:shrug: every system creates poverty from the lack of a system (olden times) to every thing we have tried. Capitalism creates less poverty, but it still creates some. The inversion does not have to be shown for the premise to be true.
 
I would argue capitalism is the best system to bring people out of poverty. As for whether or not a certain % must live in poverty, I think that no one is forced to live in poverty, but there are people in a capitalist society who live in "poverty". Of course, we cannot list the U.S. as an example of capitalism at work since we are not a purely capitalist society.
 
:shrug: every system creates poverty from the lack of a system (olden times) to every thing we have tried. Capitalism creates less poverty, but it still creates some. The inversion does not have to be shown for the premise to be true.

But it does, for something to create another thing, you have to show that in absence of that something, that the creation would not exist.

If a person in Bangladesh did not have that job earning $20 a month, what would they be doing to provide for them self?
If it is superior, why are they not doing it now?
 
But it does, for something to create another thing, you have to show that in absence of that something, that the creation would not exist.

The creation is the fact that certain jobs will never pay well. Didn't I just go over this?

If a person in Bangladesh did not have that job earning $20 a month, what would they be doing to provide for them self?
If it is superior, why are they not doing it now?

If you read my previous posts, I already stated that capitalism is the best system we have come up with so far.
 
The even stronger correlation is the level of mathematical literacy. The majority of graduate study revolves around higher mathematics.

If we are talking about jobs that require a higher understanding of math, you're right.
On the other hand, if everyone were mathematicians, you'd derive very little benefit from that education.

With the exception, of personal finance but that's like using a nuke, to kill a deer.
 
The creation is the fact that certain jobs will never pay well. Didn't I just go over this?

Not paying well, isn't the equivalent of poverty though.
I don't think I get paid well but I'm surely not impoverished.

If you read my previous posts, I already stated that capitalism is the best system we have come up with so far.

I understand that but I think that "capitalism creates poverty" is an invalid statement.
 
Not paying well, isn't the equivalent of poverty though.
I don't think I get paid well but I'm surely not impoverished.

My guess is you are using an absolute definition of poverty. And it is true that the poor in this country generally do better than the poor in most of the world. However, there is a very real and destructive psychological aspect to poverty solely relies on a more "how one is doing compared to the rest of their society" view.

My guess is you are looking at the first one and I am looking at the second one.

I understand that but I think that "capitalism creates poverty" is an invalid statement.

I am looking at it from the perspective that not everyone is going to be prosperous no matter how well suited they are for it. This is inherent in all economic systems.
 
Which is not capitalism.

Look, I understand that supply and demand is the cardinal rule. If you wanted to think like one of those libertarian fundamentalists, you might even think it's the only rule. Certainly you'll hear many right-wingers talking as if "capitalism" is just a convenient shorthand for the interests of big business. But in a broader historical view, there's a lot more to it than that. A capitalistic society is, first, a society. That means everyone plays by the same rules. In a capitalist society, those rules form a coherent policy that encourages economic activism, not stagnation. A corporation, in a so-called free market, that makes its money exploiting workers on a completely uneven field doesn't qualify as any kind of society, much less a capitalist one...no matter what Karl Marx or Dick Cheney may tell you.

I would beg to differ about capitalism and everyone "plays by the same rules". The wealthy have a privileged world.

Economic activism ? What exactly do you mean?

Thirdly .. I understand materialism has exploded under capitalism. Marx predicted communism would be as materialistic but misunderstood and underestimated individual profit motives. Clearly advances in science and physic's have been translated into the spreading of material goods. Just happens that the market is the way it is spread around.. it certainly isn't a perfect market and it has always been overseen by the state.
 
My guess is you are using an absolute definition of poverty. And it is true that the poor in this country generally do better than the poor in most of the world. However, there is a very real and destructive psychological aspect to poverty solely relies on a more "how one is doing compared to the rest of their society" view.

My guess is you are looking at the first one and I am looking at the second one.

There is an absolute threshold of poverty though.
Adequate food, water, shelter and positive human contact are things that make a person not impoverished.

In the U.S. practically no one is poor.

I am looking at it from the perspective that not everyone is going to be prosperous no matter how well suited they are for it. This is inherent in all economic systems.

That is largely true but it's not because of the economic system, it's largely the behavior of the people in that system.
 
No. Capitalism creates prosperity and allows any person to attain it. Some live in poverty because poverty is measured relatively. Our poor are richer than most of the world's rich. The difference between capitalist systems and socialist systems is that in socialism everyone is equally in poverty because the government put them all there thinking equality creates wealth.

In a capitalist system, you choose whether or not you will be rich or poor. Some people are not able bodied, in which case in a capitalist society we are free to have compassion on them and help them, but if you are able bodied, then you get to choose whether or not you will be successful. And people measure success differently based on their hedonic preferences. Some people measure freedom, the ability to get drunk every night, and the ability not to work as their personal success. They are the ones who sit by the side of the road, in the block between the free AA meetings and the public library, with a cup in their hand a bottle by their side.

Others measure wealth as experience and knowledge that they gain. Others measure it as money. In a capitalist society, we can acheive what we want. In a socialist society, you take what you are given.
 
There is an absolute threshold of poverty though.
Adequate food, water, shelter and positive human contact are things that make a person not impoverished.

In the U.S. practically no one is poor.

You are correct if we are only talking about physical needs. People are much more complex creatures than this though, which is why I find this statement inadequate to address the effect of poverty.

That is largely true but it's not because of the economic system, it's largely the behavior of the people in that system.

Economics is based on human behavior so those two statements are one in the same. We can never look at an economic system without considering the warts left by human imperfection. That was the problem with communism.
 
Last edited:
Our poor are richer than most of the world's rich.

lol.. most of the rich live in the US.. and I don't think you have ever left your country. The market exists in all countries in many they are even far more unregulated/taxed then in the US.
 
Last edited:
You are correct if we are only talking about physical needs. People are much more complex creatures than this though, which is why I find this statement inadequate to address the effect of poverty.

People need positive human interactions, love and belonging.
Those are needed non physical things.
I included that.

Economics is based on human behavior so those two statements are one in the same.

Yes and no, capitalism is a system of private ownership.
Everyone has the opportunity to privately own potential profit generators, yet some people choose not to participate.

Edit add:
We can never look at an economic system without considering the warts left by human imperfection. That was the problem with communism.

I do see those things, I don't see a need to correct a lot of them.
I prefer for those things to eventually remove themselves in the human predisposition over time.
 
Last edited:
People need positive human interactions, love and belonging.
Those are needed non physical things.
I included that.

People also need esteem, self confidence, and hope. In many cases poverty robs a person of those things. This negative feedback is part of the trap of poverty.

Yes and no, capitalism is a system of private ownership.
Everyone has the opportunity to privately own potential profit generators, yet some people choose not to participate.

In many cases, yes, that is correct. But in conjunction with those three needs I mentioned in this post. I cannot fault people for losing sight of what they are capable of. I have been in poverty and I know how it can kill a soul very quickly (this is a large reason of why I remain a liberal despite my own personal prosperity)
 
Last edited:
lol.. I just thought about something.. these guys are prolly the most hard core free market people out there. No taxes.. regulation.. government.

pd1404694.jpg
 
What's wrong with what they are doing?
Do they need a Sears or Walmart to fit your desire of good?

I just thought it was funny is all.. this is pure unrestrained capitalism. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing nessesarily. I just thought it was funny how free market wackos think capitalism makes everyone rich.
 
People also need esteem, self confidence, and hope. In many cases poverty robs a person of those things. This negative feedback is part of the trap of poverty.

Even those positive traits like hope can feed the negative loop though.
Especially when the odds are low, like playing the lottery.

I don't think perfectly rational people would be any better than mostly emotional people.
Which is what we have now, although I do seek to rid ourselves of some of those negative emotions, where they are better suited in the correct time and place.


In many cases, yes, that is correct. But in conjunction with those three needs I mentioned in this post. I cannot fault people for losing sight of what they are capable of. I have been in poverty and I know how it can kill a soul very quickly (this is a large reason of why I remain a liberal despite my own personal prosperity)


I understand what your saying completely, what I'm getting at is that capitalism does not create poverty, it creates opportunity.
Poverty is largely an absence of opportunity
 
I just thought it was funny is all.. this is pure unrestrained capitalism. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing nessesarily. I just thought it was funny how free market wackos think capitalism makes everyone rich.

It makes everyone less poor.
No one said it makes everyone rich.
 
It makes everyone less poor.
No one said it makes everyone rich.

Oh.. I think that is the suggestion indeed. These unregulated/untaxed capitalist must be rolling in the money.
egypt2007.1173405780.edfu-market.jpg
 
Capitalism does not force people into poverty. It does not cause poverty. The absence of an economic system results in practically all people being in poverty. The various economic systems raise people out of poverty. So the question is how many people are in poverty and how can you minimize it?

Feudalism left most people in poverty and only nobles and merchants rose out of poverty.

Mercantilism did better.

Communism and socialism tries to spread wealth to all members of society, by dictating equality of outcome, and since there was little growth and innovation, practically all people are in poverty.

Capitalism raises all people. Our people in poverty have TVs, cars, food, apartments. They do this on minimum wage. Our poor are orders of magnitude richer than the poor in third world countries. The fact that there is a growing gap between rich and poor, means that the rich grow more than the poor, but the poor still grow. As noted above, systems which try for equality of outcome are detrimental to society as a whole. If you don't like being poor, get an education and get out of your condition by working hard.

I'd agree. This is not capitalism's fault. A certain percentage of people will always be poor - no matter the political or economic system. There were poor and will be poor and poverty as long as there is a human race. That being said, "poverty" here in the U.S. is living like a king in other countries where "poverty" exists. People in the U.S. have no context of what poverty is as we have not experienced it. My mother lived through 1944 - 1945 Europe... that was bombed out, got nothing poverty. The closest thing America has to actual poverty are the North American Eskimo-Aleut or other Native American reservations. Yes, there are homeless and tent city's around the U.S. where poverty really is poverty as well - I'm not dismissing that. But my perception is most calculations of poverty are mostly lower income households which, when compared to say African poverty --- is not poverty at all.

Poverty is defined: "Absolute thresholds are fixed at a point in time and updated solely for price changes.... In contrast, relative thresholds, as commonly defined, are developed by reference to the actual expenditures (or income) of the population." Hardly a black & white issue, the census has an entire document on how poverty is defined and the thresholds, as well as how the definition has changed. http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/img/povmeas/poverty.pdf
 
It makes everyone less poor.
No one said it makes everyone rich.

Capitalism in its rawest state does not make people less poor. Just the opposite. That is why we set up a safety net for those who are not able to compete for any of a variety of reasons. The debate we are having in the country is largely just how big that safety net should be.
 
Back
Top Bottom