Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Tyrannical]

Another thing the US is brilliant at; gun deaths. The best in the world. A great society that is so peace loving.

[REMOVED]

Tyrannical,

The comment that appeared here was an example of racist hate speech that would be against the law in some jurisdictions. As this is the latest in a series of similar interventions we are making good on our standing promise and awarding you a 1 week holiday.

Brian & Jim.

[Forty Two]

This is not a thread about who's better, The Netherlands or the US. This is about whether capitalism is the best solution for poverty. US gun policy is not relevant to that discussion. The only person claiming some sort of superiority here is Dutchy, on behalf of the country he says is "exceptional" in relation to every other country in the world.

The US has its problems, and there are people who need help, as there are in all countries. But, by and large, the US poor are not poor by world standards. That's a reality. The people in the Netherlands, Belgium, England, Denmark, etc. - they too are not poor by world standards. It's the reality. The argument I was opposing was the one that said the US sucked so bad in this regard that it was an "outlier" compared to the "rest of the world."

[Sean Hayden]

Can you imagine what it's like to be okay with making 300x more than what someone who works under you makes?

--holy shit

Oh well, it's a reason to never feel too bad about myself I guess. At least I'm not rich.

What's the right number? 200x? 100x? 50x? 25x? 12.5x? 6.25x? 3.125x? Everyone should make the same?

Who are you to determine what other people should make? In my position, having worked for 30+ years working, I make like 20 times what some other people make. What would be fair? For me to pay for a required education and licensure, to work for 30+ years day in and day out, take the risk of creating and running an enterprise, and then I have to pay an employee who comes in and does menial labor close to what I make? 1/2? What? What's fair?

Bill Gates made like a $11 billion last year. Is that "fair?" What about Christiano Renaldo who earns $88 million a year to kick a soccer ball? Lionel Messi? Roger Federer? Lebron James? What's it like to be those guys, who make 4,000 or 5,000 times the minimum wage? Those evil bastards....

What's the right number? Should everyone make the same?

Who are you to determine what other people should make? What? What's fair?

Is what Bill Gates made fair? Is he an evil bastard?

[Hermit]

This is not a thread about whose better, The Netherlands or the US.

Of course it's not, but you made certain assertions and quoted certain sources that can be scrutinised. So, for instance, how do you reconcile the quote you lifted from the Heritage Foundation, "Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty." with the 12.7% of the US population that the Census Bureau claims lives below the poverty threshold?

Also, do you have any evidence that there are a lot of people who "live in houses they own, have two cars in the driveway, have plenty of food, have computers, tvs, internet, and go to the movies and other entertainment options regularly with some discretionary funds" among people living below the poverty thresholds?

[Forty Two]

While Forty Two is taking a bit of time out to find more Heritage Foundation type objective data,

OECD data and Pew Research, already cited previously. I've not relied on exclusively the Heritage Foundation. However, the Heritage Foundation is a far better source than, say, clickbait Slate.

Hey, FortyTwo, you missed a bit of my post.

... I had a bit of a look around on my own. So it turns out that the official Federal Poverty Levels for the 48 Border States and D.C. starts at an annual income of US$12,228 in 2016 for a single person and changes incrementally in line with how many people live in a household*. Just about all forms of income are taken into consideration. Exceptions are Capital gains or losses, Noncash benefits (e.g. food stamps and housing subsidies) and Tax credits**. According to the United States Census Bureau 12.7% of the US population lived between the applicable poverty thresholds***.

Now I would like to know two things:

1) How can an article include, as Forty Two claims, a lot of people who "live in houses they own, have two cars in the driveway, have plenty of food, have computers, tvs, internet, and go to the movies and other entertainment options regularly with some discretionary funds" among people living below the poverty thresholds?

2) Does Forty Two really expect anyone to accept the following statement in the Forbes article he linked to and quoted: "Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty."?

*https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time ... holds.html
**https://www.census.gov/topics/income-po ... sures.html
***https://www.census.gov/search-results.h ... chtype=web

Yes, I know. A lot going on today -- how can an article refer to people owning houses, having cars in the driveway and plenty of food, etc., and yet be including them among people living below poverty? Because poor in the US, as the articles and data have shown, does not mean that you don't have a house with plenty of room, a car, televisons, and a need for a diet because you consume too many calories.... poor in the US is not the same as poor in most of the rest of the world. That's what the Better Life Index shows - the bottom 10% of the US live better than the bottom 10 in all other OECD countries with the exception of the fine nations Canada and Australia, and maybe Sweden. The US beats out Germany, France, Italy, etc. The bottom 10% is 33 million people.

Point 2 is argumentative and is not a question. The Forbes article is referring to the numbers and it's not that there are zero poor people in the US at all - but that the poor people in the US - the bottom 10% -- almost all of them would be considered pretty well off in most countries of the world. Only a few other first world countries are in line with the US in that regard. The poor do way better here than in most countries in the world.

Most arguments against these points amount to reference to income inequality, where the US has most of the billionaires in the world, and most of the millionaires in the world, so in comparison to other first world countries, the US ranks toward the bottom on income inequality. We do not, however, rank low on WORLD standards of income inequality, where we don't even come close to the inequality in South American countries, Asian countries, Africa and Mexico, etc.

Think about it, though - of course the US has income inequality numbers that skew down - almost all the rich people in the world come to or are from the US. In the US there are 15.7 million millionaires. Second to the US is the UK with 2.4 millionaires. The US has the most billionaires by far too - 585 - vs. second place China at 260 and third place Germany at 130. This, though, is a good thing.

It's kind of like how the US has the most expensive college educations per capita -- but, we also have the most good universities in the world -- The United States is far and away better in terms of college education than the rest of the world -- http://www.webometrics.info/en/node/54 - we get a bad rap for the expense of colleges, but when 61 out of the top 100, and 92 out of the top 200 colleges in the world are in the United States, you're bound to have way more expensive colleges than anyone else and the average is going to go up. That doesn't mean that "the poor" can't also go to college. The US has many thousands of colleges and universities that range from free to very inexpensive, to moderate, to high, to really expensive, and we have grants, guaranteed loans, financial aid, scholarships, etc., to help the needy. That's why the US has so many people going to college, even the poor. The poor can go for free. That's something that doesn't get acknowledged enough. Bernie wants to make all colleges free, but why? The people that can afford college can pay, and the poor get free college already. Why give aid to people who don't need it? Why reduce the quality of our colleges to the standards of the "rest of the world" by socializing college? The competiive system gave the US more universities and colleges than anyone else, at all affordability levels, and the best universities in the world.

[Forty Two]

This is not a thread about whose better, The Netherlands or the US.

Of course it's not, but you made certain assertions and quoted certain sources that can be scrutinised. So, for instance, how do you reconcile the quote you lifted from the Heritage Foundation, "Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty." with the 12.7% of the US population that the Census Bureau claims lives below the poverty threshold?

because 12.7% of the population is, like the bottom 10% referred to in the OECD's Better Life Index, living better overall than the top 10% of countries like Italy, Portugal, etc., and our bottom 10% live better than the bottom 10% in Germany and France. What it means is that being "poor" in the US does not mean what it means in most of the rest of the world. For example, in Brazil, most of the population lives worse than the bottom 10% do here. That' true of Oz too - the bottom 50 to 70% in Brazil live worse than the bottom 10% in Australia. This is not a reality that just applies to the US. In Australia, you blokes -- like us blokes - do not know what "poor" is by "world standards." We know what it is by first world, western European standards, sure - but, we do not know it by African, Asian, or South American Standards, or Russian and eastern European standards. That's just a fact.

Also, do you have any evidence that there are a lot of people who "live in houses they own, have two cars in the driveway, have plenty of food, have computers, tvs, internet, and go to the movies and other entertainment options regularly with some discretionary funds" among people living below the poverty thresholds?

I linked to the evidence, and quoted from it. But, I'll try to go back in and dig out specific references and repost. To the average American, the word “poverty” implies significant material deprivation, an inability to provide a family with adequate nutritious food, reasonable shelter, and clothing. The actual living conditions of America’s poor are far different from these images. The data from which the information concerning houses, cars, food, televisions, and the like is drawn from the US Census data - the same data that some others here rely on for the "income" levels that indicate "poverty line." That same Census data keeps track of who of those folks have houses, cars, phones, televisions, plenty of food, and medical care.

The link I provided to you cited, for example, the Department of Energy's Residential Energy Consumption Survey, which showed that of the people categorized as "poor" in the US by the Census Bureau, the following percentages have the listed amenities:



In 2005, the typical household defined as poor by the government had a car and air conditioning. For entertainment, the household had two color televisions, cable or satellite TV, a DVD player, and a VCR. If there were children, especially boys, in the home, the family had a game system, such as an Xbox or PlayStation. In the kitchen, the household had a refrigerator, an oven and stove, and a microwave. Other household conveniences included a clothes washer, a clothes dryer, ceiling fans, a cordless phone, and a coffee maker.

The home of the typical poor family was not overcrowded and was in good repair. The family was able to obtain medical care when needed. By its own report, the family was not hungry and had sufficient funds during the past year to meet all essential needs.

So the key point to draw from here is that from the government data - the poor are not having a hard time getting food, clothing, shelter, televisions, houses, refrigerators, air conditioning, cable tv, and the like - they may struggle to pay the bills, and live paycheck to paycheck - but they are able to get food, get healthcare, keep a roof over their head, have some entertainment, and transport themselves around.

Interestingly - the US homeless population is less than that as a percentage of the population than the Netherlands. I'm going to digress here and link to this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... population I am going to point my finger at Dutchy and laugh my head off. Percentage of homelessness in the Netherregions -- .19% -- percentgage of homelessness in the United States of evil, selfish, capitalist America -- .18%. The US also beats Germany, France, Australia and England in that regard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... population

That is not a suggestion, again, that the US is "better" than other countries. Every country has its problems. But, what must be acknowledged here, I think, is that there are some narratives that folks have come to believe that are not in accord with some basic facts. And, look, I live here. I've lived all over the US, and I've been to most of the states, and almost every major city. I assure you, there is a good reason so many immigrants want to come here. And, the life here is not as bad, or dog eat dog, as some (not you, Hermit) might want to believe.

[Brian Peacock]

Coincidentally, news agencies reported yesterday that US homelessness is on the rise for the first time since the crash, up 4.7% on the previous year (Newsweek). The figures might not seem high but that are certain flaws in the counting system (Guardian).

[Hermit]

While Forty Two is taking a bit of time out to find more Heritage Foundation type objective data,

OECD data and Pew Research, already cited previously. I've not relied on exclusively the Heritage Foundation. However, the Heritage Foundation is a far better source than, say, clickbait Slate.

Hey, FortyTwo, you missed a bit of my post.

... I had a bit of a look around on my own. So it turns out that the official Federal Poverty Levels for the 48 Border States and D.C. starts at an annual income of US$12,228 in 2016 for a single person and changes incrementally in line with how many people live in a household*. Just about all forms of income are taken into consideration. Exceptions are Capital gains or losses, Noncash benefits (e.g. food stamps and housing subsidies) and Tax credits**. According to the United States Census Bureau 12.7% of the US population lived between the applicable poverty thresholds***.

Now I would like to know two things:

1) How can an article include, as Forty Two claims, a lot of people who "live in houses they own, have two cars in the driveway, have plenty of food, have computers, tvs, internet, and go to the movies and other entertainment options regularly with some discretionary funds" among people living below the poverty thresholds?

2) Does Forty Two really expect anyone to accept the following statement in the Forbes article he linked to and quoted: "Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty."?

*https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time ... holds.html
**https://www.census.gov/topics/income-po ... sures.html
***https://www.census.gov/search-results.h ... chtype=web

Yes, I know. A lot going on today -- how can an article refer to people owning houses, having cars in the driveway and plenty of food, etc., and yet be including them among people living below poverty? Because poor in the US, as the articles and data have shown, does not mean that you don't have a house with plenty of room, a car, televisons, and a need for a diet because you consume too many calories....

There are people who are asset-rich yet cash-poor, and they are usually pensioners in the 65+ age bracket. I get that. Are there "a lot" of them among the 12.7% of the US population living below the poverty threshold, though? Got the stats for your assertion?

poor in the US is not the same as poor in most of the rest of the world.

That is no consolation for the poor in the US, and it's a total copout even mentioning it. 12.7% of the US population live below the poverty line, full stop. You can't change that by saying they would be regarded as well off in comparison to their neighbours if they lived in some godforsaken village surrounded by rice paddies, without flushing toilet, or air conditioning and stuff like that of some godforsaken country.

Point 2 is argumentative and is not a question. The Forbes article is referring to the numbers and it's not that there are zero poor people in the US at all

That's not even argumentative. It's copout again. Is it fair comment to conclude there are no poor people in the US at all: "the entire country is at least middle class or better" and "We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty" because the poor in the US would not be poor on the same income if they lived in some shithole of a country where they could rent a four bedroom hovel for 15 dollars a month, buy a whole sheep for 2.50 and the services of a prostitute for 5? Do you think anyone among the 12.7% of the US population living below the poverty threshold - or anyone else except for some right wing lunatics for that matter - would be impressed if you told him/her that there is no poverty in the US "by global standards"?

Most arguments against these points amount to reference to income inequality

And that really sucks, doesn't it? For 12.7% of your population anyway.

Just in case you get the wrong impression, let me reiterate: I am not a communist and certainly not a Marxist. Capitalism will do me just fine, but not the kind you have. That 12.7% of the population have trouble covering the cost of basic needs in the richest country in the world, a country with the biggest economy, the most billionaires and millionaires, is truly disgusting. Worse still, is that you don't even seem to be ashamed of that. With your wealth and resources there can be no excuse for the 12.7 percentage when, according to the World Bank, the global average is an estimated 9.6%. And don't give me that "compared to other countries there is no poverty in the US" crap again. I've already told you why it won't wash.

I hope you can work out why I won't even bother replying to your subsequent post.

[Forty Two]

The poor in Germany 16.7% -- the poor in France 14%. United Kingdom 15%

Percentage below the poverty line in Italy - 29.9%

Your reference to living in "some godforsaken country" is not relevant. The bottom 10% of the population in the US live better than the AVERAGE population in OECD countries - that's top tier countries - not "god forsaken" countries.

And, if all we need to know is the percentage below poverty line, then why all the focus on the US at 12.7%? Maybe the UK, Germany and France and Italy should see what the US is doing right?

[pErvinalia]

You have massive problems and dont kid yourself but you do the whole time. Heritage is the biggest source of fake news but you are unable to see that. You are either blind or do you possess special glasses that hides the problems when you are walking about. You know Seth had a pair.

One, I pointed out that the US does have problems. I never denied that.
Two, Heritage was one of several sources, which you refuse to even address, and one of my sources was the OECD Better Life Index, and you've not even mentioned that. The Economist. Pew Research, etc. But, you keep on about the Heritage's citation of the US Census data, Housing and Urban Development Data, Department of Energy data, Department of Agriculture data -- all that hard data you declare to be fake news because it was cited by Heritage.

Nothing you've said changes the fact that what it means to be among "the poor" in the US is much different than it is in "the rest of the world." The bottom 10% live better than most of the rest of the world.

http://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/#/11111111111

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

. That's not Heritage, that's the OECD - an intergovernmental organization of 35 first world countries, and as noted the US performs VERY WELL in many measures of well-being relative to most other of those 35 countries. The "rest of the world" would be the remaining 155 or so countries who wouldn't even rank on the OECD list because we're talking South America, Africa, and Asia, most of which are abysmal when it comes to poverty.

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.

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.

The bottom 10% of the US live better than the bottom 10% in countries like Germany and France.

that's not a claim that there are no problems in the US - you're the only people who makes those kind of claims (about the Netherlands).

This bullshit has all been addressed before in a previous debate with you. The OECD Better Life Index is an AVERAGE! It says nothing about the poor. And the article from the Economist is cherry picked data. Why do you refuse to address these points?

[pErvinalia]

.

I am not a right winger, and it is you who don't post facts. You posted one article from clickbait Slate, and it did not contradict the OECD data or the US government data, and did not contradict the Pew Research data. You ignore all that, preferring to go with your "everything is better in the Netherlands" routine.

You have not posted any OECD data. Stop saying you have.

In a first world country like the US, people who are low income still tend to own houses, cars, and have disposable income.

You've been asked to back this up multiple times by multiple people. What's wrong with you?

[Hermit]

The poor in Germany 16.7% -- the poor in France 14%. United Kingdom 15%

Percentage below the poverty line in Italy - 29.9%

Orly? Let's see your sources. And the criteria used.

Here's a handy graph of poverty rates in various countries. Note that poverty is defined as 60% of median income.



In 2016 the median income was $59,039. The 2016 poverty thresholds for a single person and for a four person household were $11,880 and 24,300 respectively. I leave it to you to work out where you fucked up. Let me hasten to add that I will believe you if you tell me you just made an honest mistake.

Your reference to living in "some godforsaken country" is not relevant. The bottom 10% of the population in the US live better than the AVERAGE population in OECD countries - that's top tier countries - not "god forsaken" countries.

Adopting your criteria for poverty we can only feel sorry for the unfortunates who have nor refrigerators, DVD players and whatnots - like Queen Victoria.

Seriously, are you familiar with the type and state of gadgets of the poor? The fights that ensue when Bobby's prepaid for his 30 dollar phone that is meant to last for a month is all used up after a week? Have you seen their 5 dollar VCR, or their 20 dollar no-name DVD player they bought second-hand at the hock shop? The washing machine that's waiting for funds to replace the snapped belt to get it working again? The rust bucket with the iffy brakes that keeps breaking down? The air conditioner the kids are not allowed to switch on since the last electricity bill came in?

I mentioned this before, but it seems timely to say it again: You can lie with statistics. The Heritage Foundation is a consummate expert at doing just that.

And, if all we need to know is the percentage below poverty line, then why all the focus on the US at 12.7%? Maybe the UK, Germany and France and Italy should see what the US is doing right?

See above.

[mistermack]

Note that poverty is defined as 60% of median income.

That's not a measure of poverty, it's a measure of equality. You can be in the top ten percent in Afghanistan, and still be dirt poor. But not by that measure.

Then you get other factors, like the cost of the basics. You're not rich if you earn a lot of bucks, but you still can't afford a roof or health cover.

[pErvinalia]

The dishonesty of Coito is really starting to grate (more than usual). How many times does it need to be pointed out to him that he hasn't presented the OECD BLI data, he's presented The Economist's undisclosed aggregation of an unspecified subset of the data? The top 10% vs bottom 10% is defined as "income OR education" (my emphasis). What does that mean? I notice Coito hasn't even bothered to try and equivocate that one away. Perhaps it's even beyond his equivocation skills. AND FURTHER, the OECD BLI that he keeps referring to (of which he hasn't presented a single piece of data) is AN AVERAGE, and as such says virtually zero about the poor. It's not even median, which while still telling us nothing specific about the poor, would at least give us a less skewed view.

When the fuck is he going to acknowledge this? I propose that everyone else ignore his bullshit "data" until he addresses these points.

[rainbow]

That's fine and dandy. That's the way it goes. Charter was free - being big boys and girls - to hire someone other than Rutledge. They made a decision that Rutledge was worth more to them than $98 million. Nobody hires someone unless they think that person is worth more to them than the amount they're paying.

Do you have any idea how Corporate Cronyism works?

An overpaid CEO is only "worth it" to those that have their snouts in the same trough.

The CEO is worth it to the persons that hire the CEO. When it comes to Charter, it's the Board of Directors. The Board of Directors are beholden to the shareholders, who vote to elect them. That's how it's supposed to work.

...except that it doesn't.
Have you ever been to a Corporate Shareholder's meeting?
I have. The largest blocks of the shares are held by Investment Funds, Banks, and Trusts. They are voted by proxy. The individual shareholders may scream and shout about the unfairness of the CEO salary, but they have no chance of changing anything.
Reality
Deal with it.

Crony capitalism is a reference to an improper marriage between government and businesses, where business success depends more on government largess and restriction of competition.

WTF has that to do with Corporate Cronyism?