Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Scot Dutchy]

Well how will capitalism handle it? It cant as it means those who cant find work will die as that is the basic principle of capitalism.
In real life there will have to be state or an institution to organise society. There will have to be some form of Universal Wage. A minimum liveable salary paid to everyone. There will have to be a fair tax system for those who do have income from work which will be a minority. The little work there will be will have to shared out evenly among those who want to work. Well that will be the case in civilised countries by this time of course the US and the UK will be third world countries with the 1% living in gated towns and the rest in the wilderness.

[Forty Two]

Well how will capitalism handle it? It cant as it means those who cant find work will die as that is the basic principle of capitalism.

The basic principle of capitalism is that the means of production are generally held privately, and individuals are generally free to produce, buy and sell goods and services for a profit. In countries with that economic system, there are far fewer poor people, and the lower economic tiers are far less poor than in non-capitalist systems. So, in non-capitalist economies, those systems don't handle it, at least not effectively, and the result is more poverty.

In real life there will have to be state or an institution to organise society.

Capitalism does not necessitate or presuppose a stateless or institutionless society, and in fact to maintain capitalism there must be a state, government, laws, regulations, etc. It's the Marxist vision, for example, for there to be, eventually, a stateless society. There are, of course, anarcho-capitalists, who do think that capitalism should exist in an anarchic/stateless society - but, there are hardly any people who adhere to that. As an economic and political system, Capitalism generally exists within a state.

There will have to be some form of Universal Wage. A minimum liveable salary paid to everyone.

There are those who envision that. Even libertarian capitalists, like FA Hayek, envisioned a universal basic income.

There will have to be a fair tax system for those who do have income from work which will be a minority. The little work there will be will have to shared out evenly among those who want to work. Well that will be the case in civilised countries by this time of course the US and the UK will be third world countries with the 1% living in gated towns and the rest in the wilderness.

Well, whatever you seem to think, here in the US, middle and working class people can live in gated communities. It's not a big deal here. Most people don't live in gated communities, but it's not a sign of being wealthy. Some gated communities are really ritzy, and upscale. But, all over the place you'll see townhouse communities with gates, pools, play parks for the kids. That's pretty basic stuff here, nothing to do with the 1%.

Your commentary appears directed at the changing issues due to automation, which are significant challenges, yes. However, the issue under discussion is the reality of the world as it has been over the past 1/4 millenium. And, up to the present day, it seems hard to argue that some other economic system proves to be a better solution to poverty than a capitalist economic system. If you have an example to point to, please to.

[Forty Two]

We have never had pure capitalism here. We have a mixed economy based on a certain degree of capitalism but securely anchored in a social democratic base. Sometimes it is called European Capitalism. Most European countries operate under this system but there are exceptions which is why the UK decided to leave the EU and also why the US and Russia want to destroy it. As a bastion of social justice it is an example for the rest of the world. Of course the 1% of various countries hate it vehemently. They had hoped that Brexit would have destroyed it but the air heads are so removed from reality that is has failed badly.

Of course all these old systems are no match for the future. We are faced with a far greater problem; automatonism.

It's capitalism that provides the means to have social programs.

The opposition to the EU comes mostly from its authoritarianism and anti-democratic structure. What allows the EU to survive is not "social justice" - it's German economic power. Most of the European countries, after Germany and France, are puny and second rate economic powers. The Netherlands does quite well for it's size, but Romania? Bulgaria? Italy? Greece? Spain? Portugal? Hungary? Bosnia? Croatia? Serbia? Albania? Estonia? Latvia? Lithuania? Slovakia? Slovenia? Czech? These are "examples for the rest of the world?" Sure.... Face it - your "examples for the rest of the world" amount to 5 or 6 dependencies of what amounts to a new German Reich. Greece, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Croatia and France are all sitting around with like 10-11% unemployment rates.

[Scot Dutchy]

Gated communities are a sign of a fucked up society which America is.

[Forty Two]

Gated communities are a sign of a fucked up society which America is.

What do you think a gated community in the US is like? Where are people being prevented from going?

[Tero]

It’s all trickle down from now on.

Economists will be deployed to explain away Trump gift.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernon_L._Smith

Maybe even
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman

But obvious liberals like
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Reich
will have to wait 3 years.

[Forty Two]

1. The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006. People living on a dollar a day or less dramatically fell from 26.8 percent of the global population in 1970 to 5.4 percent in 2006 – an 80 percent decline. It is a truly remarkable achievement that doesn't receive a lot of media coverage because it highlights the success of capitalism.

"It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship," American Enterprise Institute (AEI) president Arthur Brooks said in a 2012 speech. "In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world."

2. Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent. What is even more incredible is that the global poverty rate was 53 percent in 1981, causing the decline from 53 percent to 17 percent to be "the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history."

"Since the onset of industrialisation – and as a consequence of this, economic growth — the share of people living in poverty started decreasing and kept on falling ever since," wrote Oxford University's Martin Roeser, who compiled the aforementioned data.

. Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008. According to the Adam Smith's Institute's Ben Southwood:

Those in the middle and bottom of the world income distribution have all got pay rises of around 40% between 1988-2008. Global inequality of life expectancy and height are narrowing too – showing better nutrition and better healthcare where it matters most. What we should care about is the welfare of the poor, not the wealth of the rich.

4. The world is 120 times better off today than in 1800 as a result of capitalism. The Foundation for Economic Education's (FEE) Steven Horwtiz, citing author Deidre McCloskey, noted that the 120 times figure comes from multiplying "the gains in consumption to the average human by the gain in life expectancy worldwide by 7 (for 7 billion as compared to 1 billion people)."

"The competitive market process has also made education, art, and culture available to more and more people," wrote Horwitz. "Even the poorest of Americans, not to mention many of the global poor, have access through the Internet and TV to concerts, books, and works of art that were exclusively the province of the wealthy for centuries."

Horwitz added capitalism has also resulted in people spending "a much smaller percentage of our lives working for pay" due to the increased value of labor and has produced higher life expectancy "by decades."

5. Mortality rates for children under the age of five declined by 49 percent from 1990 to 2013. This is according to World Health Organization (WHO) data, a decline termed "faster than ever." Capitalism results in lower child mortality rates by producing better access to medicine and standards of living.

In sum, the wealth and innovation spurred by capitalism has done more to help the poor than any government program ever could.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14525/5-s ... on-bandler#

[Tero]

It's all our fault. The 1%, taxes, Trump. We are trash:
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... and-movies

[Scot Dutchy]

Why the UN is investigating extreme poverty … in America, the world's richest nation

At the heart of Philip Alston’s special mission will be one question: can Americans enjoy fundamental human rights if they’re unable to meet basic living standards?

The United Nations monitor on extreme poverty and human rights has embarked on a coast-to-coast tour of the US to hold the world’s richest nation – and its president – to account for the hardships endured by America’s most vulnerable citizens.

The tour, which kicked off on Friday morning, will make stops in four states as well as Washington DC and the US territory of Puerto Rico. It will focus on several of the social and economic barriers that render the American dream merely a pipe dream to millions – from homelessness in California to racial discrimination in the Deep South, cumulative neglect in Puerto Rico and the decline of industrial jobs in West Virginia.

With 41 million Americans officially in poverty according to the US Census Bureau (other estimates put that figure much higher), one aim of the UN mission will be to demonstrate that no country, however wealthy, is immune from human suffering induced by growing inequality. Nor is any nation, however powerful, beyond the reach of human rights law – a message that the US government and Donald Trump might find hard to stomach given their tendency to regard internal affairs as sacrosanct.

[Forty Two]

Yes, things were different a year ago. No need for the UN to have monitored in 2016 or to hold the President then to account for hardships endured by Americans most vulnerable citizens.... It's now that we must hold the President accountable.

In some parts of America -- just an hour or so drive out of the first capitol of the US, Philadelphia -- people live like it's the middle of the 19th century:



What we need is a feisty Australian with a fearsome track record of holding power to account. Before, he made Saudi Arabia let women drive cars, after he tore them a new one. He use his rapier-like wordsmithing to address Brazil's "attack" on its poor, and even gave the UN itself a good talking to when it brought cholera to Haita. Because, if there is anything that makes perfect sense it's for an entity that is importing cholera to countries around the world to hold people to account.

David Grosky of the Center for Poverty at Stanford, wasted no time in presupposing the outcome of the feisty Australian's visit to the US, pointing out that the US is an outlier compared with the "rest of the world." Yes! The US, compared to the 191 or so other countries on the planet - it's an "outlier." LOL. What we need to be like is the "rest of the world" -- like China...like India... like the continent of Africa, like the continent of South America, like the Caribbean, like Mexico, like Russia and former soviet bloc countries, like the middle east, southern and southeast asia... you know -- the rest of the world. US is an outlier, compared to them. The rest of the world has poverty pretty well sewn up.

Nobody has poor people, except the US. The US outlier has been describe by the OECD as follows:

The United States performs very well in many measures of well-being relative to most other countries in the Better Life Index. The United States ranks at the top in housing, and income and wealth. They rank above the average in health status, jobs and earnings, education and skills, personal security, subjective well-being, environmental quality, and civic engagement. They rank below average in work-life balance and social connections. These rankings are based on available selected data.

Money, while it cannot buy happiness, is an important means to achieving higher living standards. In the United States, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 44 049 a year, much higher than the OECD average of USD 30 563 a year, and the highest figure in the OECD.

Good education and skills are important requisites for finding a job. In the United States, 90% of adults aged 25-64 have completed upper secondary education, much higher than the OECD average of 74%. This is slightly truer of women than men, as 89% of men have successfully completed high-school compared with 91% of women.

In terms of health, life expectancy at birth in the United States is almost 79 years, one year lower than the OECD average of 80 years. Life expectancy for women is 81 years, compared with 76 for men. The level of atmospheric PM2.5 – tiny air pollutant particles small enough to enter and cause damage to the lungs – is 10.1 micrograms per cubic meter, lower than the OECD average of 13.9 micrograms per cubic meter. The United States also does well in terms of water quality, as 84% of people say they are satisfied with the quality of their water, higher than the OECD average of 81%.

In general, Americans are more satisfied with their lives than the OECD average. When asked to rate their general satisfaction with life on a scale from 0 to 10, people in the United States gave it a 6.9 grade on average, higher than the OECD average of 6.5.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/coun ... ed-states/

So, feisty Australian who holds power to account, do tell how much of an outlier the US is, and how awful it is here. Given the references to Trump in the article, I'm sure it's his fault. He's the one that wouldn't be receptive to the findings, even though the White House invited him and his team in. It's Trump - yes, Trump -- who is to blame here, what with his xenophobia, misogyny, racism and all that. It's not that Trump wants to solve the problems within the US. I mean, during his election, Trump mentioned the issues in West Virginia (specifically cited in the article) where there has been a loss of industrial jobs (read, coal) and he has been very keen on solving that issue for those people. Trump won the rust belt from Wisconsin, through michigan, indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania because he was pointing out how problems existed there and jobs were gone and going away, and Trump was keen on preserving the employment and industry there - saving it. But, of course, it's Trump who won't be receptive to the idea that there are problems to be solved....

Indeed, feisty Australian..please present your findings. We already know the US is an "outlier" from "the rest of the world." So, all we need to know now is how much of an outlier we are. How bad to we suck, pray tell?

[Tyrannical]

42 forgot to mention that Amish country voted for Trump out of Hillary fear.
They normally don't vote or involve themselves in politics.

[Brian Peacock]

It wasn't out of 'Hilary fear', it was out of 'woman fear'.

[Hermit]

[pErvinalia]

1. The number of people living in extreme poverty worldwide declined by 80 percent from 1970 to 2006. People living on a dollar a day or less dramatically fell from 26.8 percent of the global population in 1970 to 5.4 percent in 2006 – an 80 percent decline. It is a truly remarkable achievement that doesn't receive a lot of media coverage because it highlights the success of capitalism.

"It was globalization, free trade, the boom in international entrepreneurship," American Enterprise Institute (AEI) president Arthur Brooks said in a 2012 speech. "In short, it was the free enterprise system, American style, which is our gift to the world."

2. Poverty worldwide included 94 percent of the world's population in 1820. In 2011, it was only 17 percent. What is even more incredible is that the global poverty rate was 53 percent in 1981, causing the decline from 53 percent to 17 percent to be "the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history."

"Since the onset of industrialisation – and as a consequence of this, economic growth — the share of people living in poverty started decreasing and kept on falling ever since," wrote Oxford University's Martin Roeser, who compiled the aforementioned data.

. Globally, those in the lower and middle income brackets saw increases in pay of 40 percent from 1988 to 2008. According to the Adam Smith's Institute's Ben Southwood:

Those in the middle and bottom of the world income distribution have all got pay rises of around 40% between 1988-2008. Global inequality of life expectancy and height are narrowing too – showing better nutrition and better healthcare where it matters most. What we should care about is the welfare of the poor, not the wealth of the rich.

4. The world is 120 times better off today than in 1800 as a result of capitalism. The Foundation for Economic Education's (FEE) Steven Horwtiz, citing author Deidre McCloskey, noted that the 120 times figure comes from multiplying "the gains in consumption to the average human by the gain in life expectancy worldwide by 7 (for 7 billion as compared to 1 billion people)."

"The competitive market process has also made education, art, and culture available to more and more people," wrote Horwitz. "Even the poorest of Americans, not to mention many of the global poor, have access through the Internet and TV to concerts, books, and works of art that were exclusively the province of the wealthy for centuries."

Horwitz added capitalism has also resulted in people spending "a much smaller percentage of our lives working for pay" due to the increased value of labor and has produced higher life expectancy "by decades."

5. Mortality rates for children under the age of five declined by 49 percent from 1990 to 2013. This is according to World Health Organization (WHO) data, a decline termed "faster than ever." Capitalism results in lower child mortality rates by producing better access to medicine and standards of living.

In sum, the wealth and innovation spurred by capitalism has done more to help the poor than any government program ever could.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/14525/5-s ... on-bandler#

You don't need capitalism to get money into the hands of the poor. You can just tax the rich more and give it to them.

And anyway, as pointed out to you by multiple people, what we've had is a mixed economy, not capitalism purely.

[Forty Two]

Except that the guy on the left would have a stack of cookies, not just crumbs. Yes, the guy on the right, who tends to be older, with 20+ years of employment and wealth accumulation under his belt, will have a lot more cookies, but the notion that the two guys on the left and center are sharing mere crumbs of cookies in the US is absolute bollocks.

The Better Life Index does not show that the top 1/3 live like cookie misers, and the bottom 2/3 live off of mere crumbs. It shows the opposite - that the bulk of the US - the vast majority of people - live better than the OECD average on almost every measure. And, the main measures where they don't is "work life balance" - because Americans tend to work a lot more than OECD average. We're less lazy.

By global standards there are virtually no poor people in the US -- https://www.forbes.com/forbes/welcome/? ... oogle.com/

Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio. 80% have air conditioning. More than 2/3 of the poor have 2 rooms per person, and only 6% of poor households are classified as overcrowded.

The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.) Poor Americans have more living space in their homes than the average non-poor Swede, Frenchman, or German.

Nearly 3/4 of "the poor" own cars. 1/3 of "the poor" own two cars.

97% of "the poor" have color television sets.

Each year, the U.S. imports, through both legal and illegal immigration, hundreds of thousands of additional poor persons from abroad. As a result, one-quarter of all poor persons in the U.S. are now first-generation immigrants or the minor children of those immigrants. Roughly one in ten of the persons counted among the poor by the Census Bureau is either an illegal immigrant or the minor child of an illegal. http://www.heritage.org/poverty-and-ine ... ty-america