Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[pErvinalia]

Capitalism relies on an exploited and precarious underclass. Without it, no one would do the shitty jobs they have to do for shitty pay. Capitalism might be the most efficient way we've come up with yet to utilise and allocate resources, but that doesn't make it a fair system. It's rigged by the top for the top. I'd argue that cronyism is a feature of capitalism. How else would you expect the powerful political and capital classes to interact?

[Hermit]

Companies is a social democratic countries are not allowed to exploit their workers.

Yes they are. They are only prohibited to exploit workers inhumane conditions. The difference between the value of what workers produce and the wages they receive for the production and diverting that difference to privately owned capital to do with whatever one chooses is the core of exploitation. We just accept it as one of those inescapable facts of life like taxation as long as we can put our feet up at the end of the day and, beer in hand, watch the footy without having to worry about where the money for next month's rent or mortgage comes from.

Sorry disagree. The UK has no idea how workers councils function and the control they and the board of commissioners have on a company. They cant do what they want. You dont have boards of commissioners in the UK. These are found in all northern EU countries. The workers councils are elected by the work force and at their monthly meetings a member of both boards take part. This ensures good communication though out the company. Any action a director takes has to be justified to the workers council. This whole system was set up in the 50's after the war and is part of the polder model which again is something the UK has never experienced.

You clearly do not comprehend the principle of economic exploitation. It's the difference between the value of what workers produce and the wages they receive for the production and diverting that difference to privately owned capital.

[pErvinalia]

I'm not really sure what the answers are to the problems of capitalism, but at the moment, strong social democracy seems like the best tool of an imperfect bunch. The problem is, as always, cronyism. How to stop the economically and politically powerful colluding in their own interests.

[Brian Peacock]

Given that capitalism is the dominant economic system I guess the questions is, how many dyed-in-the-wool ideological capitalists are interested in raising the living standards of society as a whole - as opposed to simply securing assets for their exclusive use - and what structural influence can we bring to bear in order to ensure that the system works for all those who have little or no choice about taking part in it?

The claim of many on the right of the political spectrum is that Capitalism could and can solve this structural problem if it's is freed from the restricting hand of bureaucratic regulation and governmental control. However, that a big 'if' isn't it? It presumes that Capitalism has a kind of moral purpose in the form of some obligation to other people and to improving their lot in life. Do you think Capitalism has such an obligation - and if so, how do you think it is doing?

Is Capitalism a social principle, a political principle, a legal or economic principle. To what extent is it any of these, or all of them?

[...] One type of deregulation that helps the poor is the elimination of occupational licensing requirements, because these do very little good and serve as a barrier to entry for low income folks. Different regulations eliminated will help.

Such as the occupational licensing requirements for doctors and nurses, pharmacists, accountants, the fitters of domestic heating systems, teachers, the disposers of toxic waste, lawyers, etc?

What do you see as the advantages of the turbo-Capitalism you've advocated over a more regulated, responsible form of Capitalism?

[pErvinalia]

You're not allowed to ask him questions, remember? Nothing short of a wall of text outlining the minutiae of your position will do.

[Scot Dutchy]

Companies is a social democratic countries are not allowed to exploit their workers.

Yes they are. They are only prohibited to exploit workers inhumane conditions. The difference between the value of what workers produce and the wages they receive for the production and diverting that difference to privately owned capital to do with whatever one chooses is the core of exploitation. We just accept it as one of those inescapable facts of life like taxation as long as we can put our feet up at the end of the day and, beer in hand, watch the footy without having to worry about where the money for next month's rent or mortgage comes from.

Sorry disagree. The UK has no idea how workers councils function and the control they and the board of commissioners have on a company. They cant do what they want. You dont have boards of commissioners in the UK. These are found in all northern EU countries. The workers councils are elected by the work force and at their monthly meetings a member of both boards take part. This ensures good communication though out the company. Any action a director takes has to be justified to the workers council. This whole system was set up in the 50's after the war and is part of the polder model which again is something the UK has never experienced.

You clearly do not comprehend the principle of economic exploitation. It's the difference between the value of what workers produce and the wages they receive for the production and diverting that difference to privately owned capital.

A director can not divert any profit to private funds. You dont understand the Dutch business model. Profits can only go back into the company for the benefit of all.

[Hermit]

Profits can only go back into the company

Indeed. And companies are not owned by its employees.

[Forty Two]

Given that capitalism is the dominant economic system I guess the questions is, how many dyed-in-the-wool ideological capitalists are interested in raising the living standards of society as a whole - as opposed to simply securing assets for their exclusive use - and what structural influence can we bring to bear in order to ensure that the system works for all those who have little or no choice about taking part in it?

I already addressed that bit. An individual is interested in pursuing his or her own interests, and running his or her enterprise for a profit. The system as a whole, with each individual pursuing his or her own interest results in a raising of the living standards of society as a whole.

I also sometimes get the implication that capitalism is viewed as a system for a certain bunch of guys who are "capitalists," and the rest of the people are not that. That's not the system. The system is each individual acting in their own interest. Some people are working for wages, others are starting businesses. They are all freely participating in the system, the market. Where each person does what they see as in their own interest and is free to pursue that, and the market is competitive, meaning that a person is not roped into a wage set by some bureaucracy but can make moves to increase pay rates or salary by changing employers and looking at other opportunities, then everyone does better. We're all capitalists.

The claim of many on the right of the political spectrum is that Capitalism could and can solve this structural problem if it's is freed from the restricting hand of bureaucratic regulation and governmental control. However, that a big 'if' isn't it? It presumes that Capitalism has a kind of moral purpose in the form of some obligation to other people and to improving their lot in life. Do you think Capitalism has such an obligation - and if so, how do you think it is doing?

The theory is not that it has some kind of moral obligation or moral purpose. It's more like evolution, which has no purpose or direction or morality - it just is. The result in capitalism is that people overall do better than the major alternatives. Now, it's not perfect, but no system is perfect. Let's take one alternative - and there are or may be others - but let's take by way of example only, not setting up a dichotomy, and recognizing that other people may well have other alternatives, and not saying it's the only other option or choice -- but, looking at socialism -- does it "presume that socialism has a kind of moral obligation in the form of some obligation to other people and to improving their lot in life?" Do you think socialism has such an obligation? If so, how do you think it is doing?

Recall this video clip - At 1:43, Phil Donahue makes the point you've suggested - that capitalism isn't moral -- he says that it seems to not reward virtue. Friedman asks "is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self interest? I think you're taking a lot of things for granted. Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who you trust to organize society for us. I don't even trust you to do that!"

What he's saying is that the notion that, say, socialism (or some other applicable system) has a kind of moral obligation in the form of an obligation to other people to improve their lot in life takes a lot for granted. Where are the better angels, who we trust to organize society for us -- to do it contrary to what people would do if left on their individual bases to act in what they see as their own self interest? Because that's what is said if one says that we have restrain free market capitalism - that some people know better - the better angels - who have our interests at heart.

Now, a reference to crony capitalism is something on which we're all on the same page -- I think we all oppose that. Where government starts favoring its cronies, it screws it all up, and it is not the capitalism anyone in favor of free markets wants.

Is Capitalism a social principle, a political principle, a legal or economic principle. To what extent is it any of these, or all of them?

It's an economic principle for sure, but obviously it has social aspects, political aspects and legal aspects.

[...] One type of deregulation that helps the poor is the elimination of occupational licensing requirements, because these do very little good and serve as a barrier to entry for low income folks. Different regulations eliminated will help.

Such as the occupational licensing requirements for doctors and nurses, pharmacists, accountants, the fitters of domestic heating systems, teachers, the disposers of toxic waste, lawyers, etc?

In the 1950s, only five percent of the nation’s workforce worked in occupations requiring a government license. In 2015, that number had grown to at least 25 percent—a 500 percent increase. Take the District of Columbia, the focus of the ALLOW Act, where licensing requirements are now imposed on entry-level interior designers, travel guides, auctioneers, cosmetologists, and pest control workers, to name just a few.

The girl who cuts my hair has to be licensed by the State. That's rather absurd, now, isn't it? Must I be protected from a bad haircut? She's not allowed to sell me a shave, like they used to do in the old days where men would go to the barber shop for a shave and a haircut. It's illegal for her to do that, because she needs a separate license for that.

an aspiring interior designer in D.C. must have six years of education and experience, pay $925 in fees, and pass an exam to work legally in this field. A cosmetologist at a D.C salon is required to study for 350 days and pass two tests, while an emergency medical technician is not required to go through any formal training. Clearly EMTs have a greater effect on public safety than do interior designers or cosmetologists.

These inconsistent, time consuming, and often expensive requirements keep millennials, recent graduates, and Americans trying to climb the economic ladder or change careers stuck . Simply put, occupational licensing blocks choice and opportunity for people looking to support themselves and contribute to society.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jaredmeyer ... 47c37d5d7e

Things like a medical license have more of a rational basis than a license for a girl to cut hair. These regulations are barriers to entry, and they impact the poor much more than the rich. They are designed to keep people out of an industry. Has the requirement of a law license produced better lawyers? Has it kept out more bad lawyers or unethical lawyers? For the most part, in the US, the requirement that a lawyer be licensed state-by-state is just a way to protect the legal industry from competition. It props up the price of legal services, which hurts the consumer, and makes it more expensive for a low income person to join the club.

What do you see as the advantages of the turbo-Capitalism you've advocated over a more regulated, responsible form of Capitalism?

[/quote]

I reject the premise that I've advocated turbo capitalism, whereas someone else has advocated a "responsible" capitalism. You take a lot for granted, as Friedman said, when you suggest that government regulation is more responsible or makes something more responsible. That's an assumption - more of presupposition - government regulation is SUPPOSED to be "responsible" and benevolent and good. But it is it? Is the requirement that my hairdresser pay annual fees to the state out of her not-so-high paycheck doing anything good? Responsible? Benevolent? Who does it help? Her? Me?

Regulation can be good, don't get me wrong. But, I reject the premise that the choice is between evil turbo-capitalism, and good, regulated, responsible capitalism. Crony capitalism, for example, is regulated capitalism. When the government hobbles one industry, and subsidizes a competitor industry, or makes laws which benefit Bank of America, and hobbles Main Street Credit Union, is that responsible?

I sense there are areas of agreement between us.

[Forty Two]

A director can not divert any profit to private funds. You dont understand the Dutch business model. Profits can only go back into the company for the benefit of all.

Does this apply to small businesses too, run by one, two or just a few owners? Or, is this related to publicly traded companies?

I confess I likely don't understand your system in this regard.

Like, if I start a corner barber shop, and I own that corporation, am I unable to divert profit to private funds. I have to keep that in the corporation, and spend it only on barber shop stuff? How do I make my money? Do I have to take a paycheck? Or, can I take distributions to shareholder (me) of the money I earn?

Are there limits on my ability to make money? Like, if I come up with a business model where I double the profit I make on haircuts while charging the same as the competition. Do I get to take home that double, or do I have to put it back into the company?

[PsychoSerenity]

Extreme poverty in America: read the UN special monitor's report

[Animavore]

Damning.

[Brian Peacock]

That not real, third-world poverty though. That's FAKE POVERTY, alternative poverty.

[pErvinalia]

[Scot Dutchy]

Profits can only go back into the company

Indeed. And companies are not owned by its employees.

And neither by the directors.

[Scot Dutchy]

Some facts from the report:

By most indicators, the US is one of the world’s wealthiest countries. It spends more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, Russia, United Kingdom, India, France, and Japan combined.

US health care expenditures per capita are double the OECD average and much higher than in all other countries. But there are many fewer doctors and hospital beds per person than the OECD average.

US infant mortality rates in 2013 were the highest in the developed world.

Americans can expect to live shorter and sicker lives, compared to people living in any other rich democracy, and the “health gap” between the U.S. and its peer countries continues to grow.

U.S. inequality levels are far higher than those in most European countries

Neglected tropical diseases, including Zika, are increasingly common in the USA. It has been estimated that 12 million Americans live with a neglected parasitic infection. A 2017 report documents the prevalence of hookworm in Lowndes County, Alabama.

The US has the highest prevalence of obesity in the developed world.

In terms of access to water and sanitation the US ranks 36th in the world.

America has the highest incarceration rate in the world, ahead of Turkmenistan, El Salvador, Cuba, Thailand and the Russian Federation. Its rate is nearly 5 times the OECD average.

The youth poverty rate in the United States is the highest across the OECD with one quarter of youth living in poverty compared to less than 14% across the OECD.

The Stanford Center on Inequality and Poverty ranks the most well-off countries in terms of labor markets, poverty, safety net, wealth inequality, and economic mobility. The US comes in last of the top 10 most well-off countries, and 18th amongst the top 21.

In the OECD the US ranks 35th out of 37 in terms of poverty and inequality.

According to the World Income Inequality Database, the US has the highest Gini rate (measuring inequality) of all Western Countries

The Stanford Center on Poverty and Inequality characterizes the US as “a clear and constant outlier in the child poverty league.” US child poverty rates are the highest amongst the six richest countries – Canada, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Sweden and Norway.

About 55.7% of the U.S. voting-age population cast ballots in the 2016 presidential election. In the OECD, the U.S. placed 28th in voter turnout, compared with an OECD average of 75%. Registered voters represent a much smaller share of potential voters in the U.S. than just about any other OECD country. Only about 64% of the U.S. voting-age population (and 70% of voting-age citizens) was registered in 2016, compared with 91% in Canada (2015) and the UK (2016), 96% in Sweden (2014), and nearly 99% in Japan (2014).

Yep there is no poverty in America 42? Have you called it another name? This is the OECD data you praised so much 42.

http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Page ... 3&LangID=E