• 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
Gabriel said:
Oh.. I think that is the suggestion indeed. These unregulated/untaxed capitalist must be rolling in the money.
egypt2007.1173405780.edfu-market.jpg
Click to expand...

I see opportunity, where you see something else.
It's wonderful, to see people engage in free exchange, unhindered by irrational regulation.

Edit: that one trade stand shows the bounty a little profit motive can provide.
 
washunut said:
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.
Click to expand...

That isn't true either.

Only those who cannot provide for themselves because of a mental and/or physical condition stay poor.
They are not made poor by capitalism.
Absent the social welfare system, they will probably die.

Capitalism has created excess, with that comes charity.
A voluntary social welfare system.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why the poor play the lottery more often than the middle or upper class. It gives them some sort of (mostly false) hope where they would otherwise have none. Basically its (crappy) therapy for those other things I mentioned.

Harry Guerrilla said:
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
Click to expand...

Poverty and opportunity are a part of any economic system.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I see opportunity, where you see something else.
It's wonderful, to see people engage in free exchange, unhindered by irrational regulation.

Edit: that one trade stand shows the bounty a little profit motive can provide.
Click to expand...

lol.. so consider what that country does economically and wonder why their free market looks like that and ours looks like this.

ipad-420x0.jpg
 
megaprogman said:
There is a reason why the poor play the lottery more often than the middle or upper class. It gives them some sort of (mostly false) hope where they would otherwise have none. Basically its (crappy) therapy for those other things I mentioned.
Click to expand...

I agree.
To me, it's crazy that we allow the state to operate a system that is essentially a tax on the poor, to provide education for the middle and wealthy income ranges.


megaprogman said:
Poverty and opportunity are a part of any economic system.
Click to expand...

That is some what true, poverty is apart of all systems, opportunity isn't always available in tightly controlled systems.
 
Gabriel said:
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.
Click to expand...

By economic activism I mean entrepreneurship, creativity, upward mobility, independence, among other things. Contrary to what spud_meister said, and unlike in pre- or non-capitalist societies, a person in a functional capitalist society isn't merely a resource. They're more like an engine that puts resources to work. The difference is like the difference between a working motor put to use and one put to scrap.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I agree.
To me, it's crazy that we allow the state to operate a system that is essentially a tax on the poor, to provide education for the middle and wealthy income ranges.
Click to expand...

I agree.

Harry Guerrilla said:
That is some what true, poverty is apart of all systems, opportunity isn't always available in tightly controlled systems.
Click to expand...

Its impossible to stifle all opportunity, even in a police state. One can always become a patsy for the sytem for example.
 
megaprogman said:
Its impossible to stifle all opportunity, even in a police state. One can always become a patsy for the sytem for example.
Click to expand...

That's true too.
It's incredibly wasteful though.

For instance, the cost of marijuana per pound is more than 15 times the cost it would be if it were legal for sale.
It's a legitimate opportunity buried and made wasteful.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Their individual age of development does not mean that they are worse off.
Ipads, in my mind, are a complete waste.
Click to expand...

:) I dislike them as well.(Ipads)

I think what your referring to with regards to "age" is their economic era.. which would be agricultural... at least by the look of it. But then comes more advanced economies in economic theory .. manufacturing comes next which is a great industry for innovation and growth through efficiency advances.. but these advances already exist.. so maybe they will skip the manufacturing part and move to the service industry.. ? Of course in China they didn't use innovation they use cheap labour that the government keeps artificially low via anti inflationary politics that are favourable to capitalist.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
I see opportunity, where you see something else.
It's wonderful, to see people engage in free exchange, unhindered by irrational regulation.

Edit: that one trade stand shows the bounty a little profit motive can provide.
Click to expand...

Crucial point here, which may help me illustrate what I'm talking about. These people are unregulated, let's assume. They own property and work for profit. They're most likely entrepreneurs. Where Gabriel sees stagnation, Harry sees opportunity. So, who's right?

The answer is that it depends on whether they're operating in a genuinely capitalist setting. Do they have access to credit and insurance? Can they incorporate? Do they have a stable currency that will allow them to accumulate and invest capital? These are just some of the things that promote real economic development. You have to look deeper to see whether these conditions exist.
 
Gabriel said:
:) I dislike them as well.(Ipads)

I think what your referring to with regards to "age" is their economic era.. which would be agricultural... at least by the look of it. But then comes more advanced economies in economic theory .. manufacturing comes next which is a great industry for innovation and growth through efficiency advances.. but these advances already exist.. so maybe they will skip the manufacturing part and move to the service industry.. ? Of course in China they didn't use innovation they use cheap labour that the government keeps artificially low via anti inflationary politics that are favourable to capitalist.
Click to expand...

They won't necessarily skip that age because many things will be more beneficial to be made in their home country, instead of importing it.
Thus lowering the overall cost of the item, making it more affordable for the local populace.

China uses a combination of lower cost labor and innovation.
The companies exporting labor jobs still employ lean manufacturing and automation to make these items because the quality standards of the export market are high.

They can't keep their interest rates low forever, eventually they will stop.
 
Winston Smith said:
Crucial point here, which may help me illustrate what I'm talking about. These people are unregulated, let's assume. They own property and work for profit. They're most likely entrepreneurs. Where Gabriel sees stagnation, Harry sees opportunity. So, who's right?

The answer is that it depends on whether they're operating in a genuinely capitalist setting. Do they have access to credit and insurance? Can they incorporate? Do they have a stable currency that will allow them to accumulate and invest capital? These are just some of the things that promote real economic development. You have to look deeper to see whether these conditions exist.
Click to expand...

I would expect that they can do pretty much whatever they want with the products they are selling.
 
What's a fair wage, anyway? What is enough for someone to earn? What's the fair goal?

I don't imagine it's easy to define - minimum wage never seems to be enough . . and many who earn far more than minimum wage never seem to make enough.

Wage means nothing - I think it's more so how you spend it, what your values are and your spending and lifestyle habits.
 
Winston Smith said:
Crucial point here, which may help me illustrate what I'm talking about. These people are unregulated, let's assume. They own property and work for profit. They're most likely entrepreneurs. Where Gabriel sees stagnation, Harry sees opportunity. So, who's right?

The answer is that it depends on whether they're operating in a genuinely capitalist setting. Do they have access to credit and insurance? Can they incorporate? Do they have a stable currency that will allow them to accumulate and invest capital? These are just some of the things that promote real economic development. You have to look deeper to see whether these conditions exist.
Click to expand...

The development of credit markets in the third world, is being aided by social lending sites like Kiva(?), even without that there usually is opportunity to acquire capital to expand.
Although it's much lower than what you would need in a first world nation.

Incorporation isn't necessary in my opinion, neither is a lot of insurance.
 
Gabriel said:
I would expect that they can do pretty much whatever they want with the products they are selling.
Click to expand...

Peasants have bought and sold goods since long before there was any such thing as capitalism. The question is what they can do with their businesses and their lives, not with a few pieces of fruit.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The development of credit markets in the third world, is being aided by social lending sites like Kiva(?), even without that there usually is opportunity to acquire capital to expand.
Although it's much lower than what you would need in a first world nation.

Incorporation isn't necessary in my opinion, neither is a lot of insurance.
Click to expand...

These are just examples. Some people will have more need of insurance and incorporation than others. Each one will have to make his own decisions, but the conditions have to exist in which those decisions can be made.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
They won't necessarily skip that age because many things will be more beneficial to be made in their home country, instead of importing it.
Thus lowering the overall cost of the item, making it more affordable for the local populace.

China uses a combination of lower cost labor and innovation.
The companies exporting labor jobs still employ lean manufacturing and automation to make these items because the quality standards of the export market are high.

They can't keep their interest rates low forever, eventually they will stop.
Click to expand...

Yeah no they likely actually live in a mixed free market economy.

China does use a combination of innovation and cheap labour but manufacturers.. ie multinational corporations can skip the high cost of innovation more easy there. Which directly translates to cheap labour. But the technology exists to do it in the US .. only thing is it produces less employment which equates to less consumption. The American economy failed because of lack of legitimate manufacturing that is exported .. essentially. Chamerica is the baby of the 90's "new world era" globalisation economics, which is turning into a grand failure for the market and sequentially …….. America.
 
Winston Smith said:
These are just examples. Some people will have more need of insurance and incorporation than others. Each one will have to make his own decisions, but the conditions have to exist in which those decisions can be made.
Click to expand...

That is true.

I think the fundamental factors are opportunity and low barriers of entry.
 
Gabriel said:
Yeah no they likely actually live in a mixed free market economy.

China does use a combination of innovation and cheap labour but manufacturers.. ie multinational corporations can skip the high cost of innovation more easy there. Which directly translates to cheap labour. But the technology exists to do it in the US .. only thing is it produces less employment which equates to less consumption. The American economy failed because of lack of legitimate manufacturing that is exported .. essentially. Chamerica is the baby of the 90's "new world era" globalisation economics, which is turning into a grand failure for the market and sequentially …….. America.
Click to expand...

A trade deficit will not hurt a country long term.
That has been argued for near on 200 years, it isn't true.

The economy fails because there are market cycles, some cycles are more influenced by policy that others.
This cycle drop is because of a lot of adverse policies in regard to housing.

China has to employ manufacturing innovation because of the international expectation of minimum quality.
China used to make a lot of just junky crap, see Chinese scooter imports.
Lately they have racketed it up, producing quality low cost items, the growing Chinese middle class is a good thing.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
A trade deficit will not hurt a country long term.
That has been argued for near on 200 years, it isn't true.

The economy fails because there are market cycles, some cycles are more influenced by policy that others.
This cycle drop is because of a lot of adverse policies in regard to housing.

China has to employ manufacturing innovation because of the international expectation of minimum quality.
China used to make a lot of just junky crap, see Chinese scooter imports.
Lately they have racketed it up, producing quality low cost items, the growing Chinese middle class is a good thing.
Click to expand...

No your wrong.. the trade deficit is huge. Your borrowing largely to subsidise corperations that run in both countries. In the end your debt will be huge and the corperations will just leave you as the bag holder.
 
Gabriel said:
No your wrong.. the trade deficit is huge. Your borrowing largely to subsidise corperations that run in both countries. In the end your debt will be huge and the corperations will just leave you as the bag holder.
Click to expand...

Check this out though, I'm about to buy a chunk of Chinese telecom stock.
It pays a nice dividend.
All markets are interconnected, even when they aren't measured for returnability.
(like dividends from the Chinese telecom, they aren't measured in the trade balance.)
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Check this out though, I'm about to buy a chunk of Chinese telecom stock.
It pays a nice dividend.
All markets are interconnected, even when they aren't measured for returnability.
(like dividends from the Chinese telecom, they aren't measured in the trade balance.)
Click to expand...

I understand that.. most people don't do it. If I were investing I would not be investing in America.. if I had the money to invest.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Check this out though, I'm about to buy a chunk of Chinese telecom stock.
It pays a nice dividend.
All markets are interconnected, even when they aren't measured for returnability.
(like dividends from the Chinese telecom, they aren't measured in the trade balance.)
Click to expand...

I should also say though the chinese market is in jeaprody because of the American economy.. which makes investment iffy in China. They don't really have a good consumer base.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom