• 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
Goldenboy219 said:
This is pure speculation.

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

That does not make it wrong.
What incentive was created, to purchase more cars, after the credit expired?

Goldenboy219 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Used car market values are up over a year ago, some more pronounced than others.
In a weak job market and contracting wages, that isn't a plus.

"With Used-Car Prices Up 10 Percent Over 2009, Buyers Need Shopping Discipline" Edmunds Daily
 
reefedjib said:
You are kidding right? You don't see that the real wages earned by our poor has grown over the past 200 years? I wish I had the data to demonstrate it. Ok, I found a graph. The bottom 20th percentile has doubled it's income over the past 60 years.

500px-United_States_Income_Distribution_1947-2007.svg.png
Click to expand...
The bottom 20th percentile has doubled it's income over the past 60 years, but the cost of living has quadrupled.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
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.
Click to expand...

Problem is deregulation did hurt with the finance market... a lot.
 
Mickey Shane said:
The bottom 20th percentile has doubled it's income over the past 60 years, but the cost of living has quadrupled.
Click to expand...

You have a link to go with that claim?
 
Well, there are obviously some jobs that do not pay well, but society wants/needs them. They pay little because the type of work can be done by anyone, and the potential labour pool is large. Therefore, these people will, in a capitalistic system, never make much money unless they take on multiple jobs or very long hours. It's unavoidable without external factors working on the system with that reality in mind (e.g. Social Services). Some people must be on the bottom rung, and given some people also do not have much potential for advancement due to innate ability, poverty will exist.

Without some kind of regulation, people will naturally try to maximize their welfare to the disadvantage of others in the market, so long as they are able. And when you have a large group of people who are unskilled, or even a glut of people who ARE skilled, you will have that problem.

Wealth will concentrate significantly in the hands of a few, over time, which will, if not addressed, lead to social unrest. It's happened a myriad of times throghout history, but no one ever learns from it. So far, wages have remained relatively stable, while this isn't so for the wealthier. Family income has gone up, but that's deceiving, because you need to work longer, harder, and have more people in the family working to do that, or else you will notice the stagnation.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That does not make it wrong.
What incentive was created, to purchase more cars, after the credit expired?
Click to expand...

The fact that these companies did produce cars that people desired is a positive for consumption demand trends. In the absence of the program, who knows how much lower both demand and production would have fallen for the trend to reverse.

To make a statement such as "it would have occurred anyways" ignores the time preference. I agree, it would have eventually reversed, the question is when?


Used car market values are up over a year ago, some more pronounced than others.
In a weak job market and contracting wages, that isn't a plus.

"With Used-Car Prices Up 10 Percent Over 2009, Buyers Need Shopping Discipline" Edmunds Daily
Click to expand...

What happened to auto prices the year before? Were they constant?
 
Goldenboy219 said:
The fact that these companies did produce cars that people desired is a positive for consumption demand trends. In the absence of the program, who knows how much lower both demand and production would have fallen for the trend to reverse.

To make a statement such as "it would have occurred anyways" ignores the time preference. I agree, it would have eventually reversed, the question is when?
Click to expand...

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.



Goldenboy219 said:
What happened to auto prices the year before? Were they constant?
Click to expand...

Come on now, you know this time period is deflationary.
Prices should not rise that much.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
We tend to privatize profits and socialize losses with the financial system, moral hazard is bound to develop.
We've been doing this for near on 70 years.
Click to expand...

Well.. if that process was not followed, do you suppose there would be so much blind faith in the free market?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
That isn't a "free market."

It's not blind faith, it's what works best, for most people.
Click to expand...

Well no it isn't free market at all is it? Do you suppose that maybe the whole gig is entirely fake? I mean banks create wealth out of nothing. It works best for some people.. not all people.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
Well no it isn't free market at all is it? Do you suppose that maybe they whole gig is entirely fake? I mean banks create wealth out of nothing. It works best for some people.. not all people.
Click to expand...

Banks are the only group with the power to create currency, so it isn't worth nothing.
Power does have a value and people generally respect that.
Although I don't agree with the cartel they are allowed to maintain.

It works best for most people, no other system comes close to replicating the gains, that capitalism has provided for almost all people.

Dedicated technological and social progression, could not exist without some form of free exchange.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Banks are the only group with the power to create currency, so it isn't worth nothing.
Power does have a value and people generally respect that.
Although I don't agree with the cartel they are allowed to maintain.

It works best for most people, no other system comes close to replicating the gains, that capitalism has provided for almost all people.

Dedicated technological and social progression, could not exist without some form of free exchange.
Click to expand...

It works best for a small minority actually. Most don't understand what it means to have your own private jet etc..

Clearly private banking that is unregulated is not benign and your fooling yourself it you think otherwise. Nationalised banking is possible I believe but I'd prefer a separation of state and fiscal responsibility if there actually was one. let the banks fail .. show the people what the market is about and retain governmental jurisdiction over the well being of society. Its what is going to happen anyhow but it did not have to be so ridiculously messed up as they have made it.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
It works best for a small minority actually. Most don't understand what it means to have your own private jet etc..
Click to expand...

If you need a private jet to be happy but begrudge others who want one, you may have other issues that no economic system can help.

I can't fix this for you either.

Gabriel said:
Clearly private banking that is unregulated is not benign and your fooling yourself it you think otherwise. Nationalised banking is possible I believe but I'd prefer a separation of state and fiscal responsibility if there actually was one. let the banks fail .. show the people what the market is about and retain governmental jurisdiction over the well being of society. Its what is going to happen anyhow but it did not have to be so ridiculously messed up as they have made it.
Click to expand...

Oh I know, something about the bourgeois being evil and all that.

All you're moving towards is more centralization, the best I can hope for is that you live to see the results of your wants and that you also live long enough to regret them.

Hopefully, you won't be able to take the rest of us, down that path.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
If you need a private jet to be happy but begrudge others who want one, you may have other issues that no economic system can help.

I can't fix this for you either.



Oh I know, something about the bourgeois being evil and all that.

All you're moving towards is more centralization, the best I can hope for is that you live to see the results of your wants and that you also live long enough to regret them.

Hopefully, you won't be able to take the rest of us, down that path.
Click to expand...

lmao, oh but you could if you had the money.. and that actually happens often enough.. but that point is nether here nor there. The point is that capitalism and free markets work best for a minority.. not the majority. A very powerful and influential group in Washington.

Umm.. I think you are making some sort of character judgement with regards to my line of questioning that is off base and instead of giving a straight answer you attack my character. Suggesting some variety of moral failure on my behalf because of some simple questions libertarians should be all up front about.
 
Last edited:
Gabriel said:
lmao, oh but you could if you had the money.. and that actually happens often enough.. but that point is nether here nor there. The point is that capitalism and free markets work best for a minority.. not the majority. A very powerful and influential group in Washington.
Click to expand...

You'd be right except none of it is remotely true
Almost all people benefit, greatly I would add.

Gabriel said:
Umm.. I think you are making some sort of character judgement with regards to my line of questioning that is off base and instead of giving a straight answer you attack my character. Suggesting some variety of moral failure on my behalf because of some simple questions libertarians should be all up front about.
Click to expand...

No, I'm saying that what you are talking about, is the same as all the other "hate the bourgeois" and "free the people from capitalism."

High ideals that can never be replicated in the real world.
They almost universally end up being violent and bloody, usually, towards many innocent people.
Something I can't endorse.

I just hope you live to see the consequences of what you want.
 
Hatuey said:
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.



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.

428_wage_by_education_chart.jpg


educationPays.jpg


education-pays-off.gif


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.



Most of Africa, the non-coastal areas of China, the majority of India etc. Seriously. Travel the world a little.
Click to expand...

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?
 
ElijahGalt said:
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?
Click to expand...

When I was born all you needed for a decent income was high school.
 
No matter what system, there will always be the poor.
But I think the Liberals seem to care more for these unfortunates. The conservatives are safe inside their gated communities.
 
Capitalism does not force ANYONE to do ANYTHING. Hence the word FREE enterprise. If you choose to do nothing, then you will most likely end up in poverty. But no one is forcing you to do nothing, and no one is enslaving you to do things. The second a slave system enters the picture, we are no longer talking about a FREE market.
 
Gabriel said:
When I was born all you needed for a decent income was high school.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Education is not the key to success. Specialization is the key to success. Education is merely ONE avenue towards specialization.
 
ElijahGalt said:
Capitalism does not force ANYONE to do ANYTHING. Hence the word FREE enterprise. If you choose to do nothing, then you will most likely end up in poverty. But no one is forcing you to do nothing, and no one is enslaving you to do things. The second a slave system enters the picture, we are no longer talking about a FREE market.
Click to expand...

I think about these things a lot, especially at work where I get the direct observation of how "mentally" poor people act.
It seems to transition from behavior.

The guy who has 7-8 kids (can't remember exactly how much) decided to go to the convenience store on every single break we have.
He buys beer, smokes weed, plays the scratch off lottery games and some how his poverty is all the fault of someone else.

You can't reason with people who believe this nonsense.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom