• 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:
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.
Click to expand...

Their consumer base is growing and they are slowly liberating their economy.
Emerging markets have the most potential for profit because of the previous idleness and/or wastefulness of their resources prior to the introduction to the international market.

Vietnam is another example of a potential boom waiting to happen.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
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.
Click to expand...

Some things in America make sense to invest in.
I work for a domestic manufacturer listed on the NYSE.

The products we make aren't going to be outsourced to China, it makes no economic sense to do it.
I've put my money where my mouth is on this one.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Some things in America make sense to invest in.
I work for a domestic manufacturer listed on the NYSE.

The products we make aren't going to be outsourced to China, it makes no economic sense to do it.
I've put my money where my mouth is on this one.
Click to expand...

yeah but return on investment the Chinese have had nice growth. If only the US had come up with something after the IT boom beyond the service industry. Biotech has failed and is viewed as risky business and rightfully so. After the IT bubble burst they moved speculation to the housing market that was beyond all reality.. a result of an unrestrained financial market.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Their consumer base is growing and they are slowly liberating their economy.
Emerging markets have the most potential for profit because of the previous idleness and/or wastefulness of their resources prior to the introduction to the international market.

Vietnam is another example of a potential boom waiting to happen.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it is to slow a "liberation"... particularly now. This market crash is about 30 years to early.
 
Gabriel said:
yeah but return on investment the Chinese have had nice growth. If only the US had come up with something after the IT boom beyond the service industry. Biotech has failed and is viewed as risky business and rightfully so. After the IT bubble burst they moved speculation to the housing market that was beyond all reality.. a result of an unrestrained financial market.
Click to expand...

Generally speaking, pushing a portion of the market in one direction via positive action, can lead to very large busts.

I think the best bet, is to leave it to itself during the next boom and see what develops.
A hands off market boom, to see where the natural want for growth heads.
 
Gabriel said:
The problem is that it is to slow a "liberation"... particularly now. This market crash is about 30 years to early.
Click to expand...

It has to be slow, it sucks but when you force it, all sorts of problems that would be dealt with easily over the long term, manifest themselves more greatly in the short term.
That creates all sorts of unwanted short term havoc.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Generally speaking, pushing a portion of the market in one direction via positive action, can lead to very large busts.

I think the best bet, is to leave it to itself during the next boom and see what develops.
A hands off market boom, to see where the natural want for growth heads.
Click to expand...

The real problem is they don't see that boom in the near future. What will energise the next boom? There is no "invest in" such and such business.. "it's the future" talk going on. It's almost like economist have ran out of answers for their science.
 
lol.. the poll just spiked in the last 10 min.. in favor for the opposite. Someone is hacking the poll lol.. so pathetic.
 
Gabriel said:
lol.. the poll just spiked in the last 10 min.. in favor for the opposite. Someone is hacking the poll lol.. so pathetic.
Click to expand...

No, the normal people are waking up in the morning, checking DP, and they realized how simple this question is. Capitalism brings everyone's wages up, not just the rich. The poor of today are much, much better off than they were 50 years ago.
 
phattonez said:
No, the normal people are waking up in the morning, checking DP, and they realized how simple this question is. Capitalism brings everyone's wages up, not just the rich. The poor of today are much, much better off than they were 50 years ago.
Click to expand...

haha good one.
 
Gabriel said:
The real problem is they don't see that boom in the near future. What will energise the next boom? There is no "invest in" such and such business.. "it's the future" talk going on. It's almost like economist have ran out of answers for their science.
Click to expand...

It's hard to see.
If you believe in spontaneous order, things will come together eventually.
The collaboration of millions of people in free exchange will help create another boom in "something."
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It's hard to see.
If you believe in spontaneous order, things will come together eventually.
The collaboration of millions of people in free exchange will help create another boom in "something."
Click to expand...

Yeah but the market doesn't react well to "uncertainty".
 
phattonez said:
Kind of an ambiguous claim, don't you think?
Click to expand...

There isn't any ambiguity in that claim.. if you don't know where to invest then you don't.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Uncertainty can be many things.
It doesn't help when our political leaders flip and flop over what they want to do to people in the market.
Click to expand...

That would be political leaders who have consulted elite economists to dictate public policy who have been free market thinkers. This mess has been caused by free marketering economics based on economic theory. It is pretty clear to see.
 
It should be noted that poverty is a relative concept where as absolute poverty is not. What is absolute poverty? The inability to provide the essentials to live, e.g. food, water, clothing, etc.... Absolute poverty is a trap without exogenous support, this is a necessary truth.

Does capitalism create absolute poverty? Absolutely not:2razz:. However, capitalism requires relative poverty to function; as this (relative poverty) is what sets this system apart from socialism/communism. The simple fact that some will do better than others.
 
Gabriel said:
That would be political leaders who have consulted elite economists to dictate public policy who have been free market thinkers. This mess has been caused by free marketering economics based on economic theory. It is pretty clear to see.
Click to expand...

Erm, political leaders do not listen to economic advice like that.
If they did, we wouldn't be doing so many stupid things, that we do.

As an example, cash for clunkers was a classic example of the broken window fallacy.
Not trying to pick on Obama but this is a clear example of economic stupidity.

Politicians first and foremost goal is to, appease their electorate and political donors.
Economic considerations come third, forth, fifth or never.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Erm, political leaders do not listen to economic advice like that.
If they did, we wouldn't be doing so many stupid things, that we do.

As an example, cash for clunkers was a classic example of the broken window fallacy.
Not trying to pick on Obama but this is a clear example of economic stupidity.

Politicians first and foremost goal is to, appease their electorate and political donors.
Economic considerations come third, forth, fifth or never.
Click to expand...

lol.. not in America. They listen pretty good and hard to the greed is good economists. Deregulation was driven by free market buffs.. and it was a bi partisan effort.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
As an example, cash for clunkers was a classic example of the broken window fallacy.
Not trying to pick on Obama but this is a clear example of economic stupidity.
Click to expand...

You can claim it to be a broken window fallacy, but the fact remains, following its conclusion, demand for automobiles continues to trend upward.
 
Goldenboy219 said:
You can claim it to be a broken window fallacy, but the fact remains, following its conclusion, demand for automobiles continues to trend upward.
Click to expand...

The trend would have happened anyway, people don't buy cars because there was (past tense) a credit for buying them.

Not to mention the waste of destroying functional automobiles and the increased costs to lower income people, in the used car market.
 
Gabriel said:
lol.. not in America. They listen pretty good and hard to the greed is good economists. Deregulation was driven by free market buffs.. and it was a bi partisan effort.
Click to expand...

Most economists aren't anymore greedy than other people.
Deregulation does not hurt, if there are multiple market participants.

One place where deregulation can hurt, is power generation.
Where there is one source of the product.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

I would say that your exclusions namely mental or physical weakness makes my point. They are not made poor by the capitalistic system, but under that system they can't compete and thus are made poor.
 
washunut said:
I would say that your exclusions namely mental or physical weakness makes my point. They are not made poor by the capitalistic system, but under that system they can't compete and thus are made poor.
Click to expand...

With any system they can be poor, lets say that there is no formalized government.
Merely societal anarchy.
If these people are not cared for by relatives, they will most likely, eventually die.

It is not capitalism that condemns them but their disability, in any economic setting.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
The trend would have happened anyway, people don't buy cars because there was (past tense) a credit for buying them.
Click to expand...

This is pure speculation.

03ecoact-1.gif


03ecoact-7.gif


03ecoact-4.gif


The Effects of “Cash for Clunkers” on the Auto Industry :: Kyle Fee :: Economic Trends :: 10.06.09 :: Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland

This was something i researched extensively as i am long Ford (and have been) since the beginning of cash for clunkers.

Not to mention the waste of destroying functional automobiles and the increased costs to lower income people, in the used car market.
Click to expand...

The used car market (total vehicles sold) was was down an excess of 20% since late 2008, signaling a significant price reduction in the used car market. This however was nowhere near the reduction in the new car market.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom