Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[rainbow]

Exactly.

It's inconceivable that he can't understand why we are all so infuriated with him. We've all been trying to argue for nuance, and he's been consistently trotting out a false dichotomy.

Do not generalise.

I for one am not infuriated, but mildly amused at his attempts.

[Scot Dutchy]

It is his way he uses data that really annoys me. It is obvious his data is cherry picked. For instance the cost of living. He uses the average of the whole of US. Cost of living is based on cities and areas.

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index

New York is 6th on the planet. San Francisco 7th. Washington DC is 9th. There are a further 10 major cities above Amsterdam. Yet he maintains the US has a lower cost of living than the Netherlands. He does this with all his data. Like poverty. He claims there is no poverty in America by comparing incomes with the third world.

He obviously has never heard about this place:

50 Years Into the War on Poverty, Hardship Hits Back

[Forty Two]

Exactly.

It's inconceivable that he can't understand why we are all so infuriated with him. We've all been trying to argue for nuance, and he's been consistently trotting out a false dichotomy.

Do not generalise.

I for one am not infuriated, but mildly amused at his attempts.

I've not trotted out a dichotomy. Note, I'm not the one that suggests that regulation means "not capitalism," or that social welfare for the needy is "not capitalism." That's the folks who have been "infuriated" by me who are doing that.

But, do you disagree? Hermit said nobody was disagreeing with me.

[Forty Two]

It is his way he uses data that really annoys me. It is obvious his data is cherry picked. For instance the cost of living. He uses the average of the whole of US. Cost of living is based on cities and areas.

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index

New York is 6th on the planet. San Francisco 7th. Washington DC is 9th. There are a further 10 major cities above Amsterdam. Yet he maintains the US has a lower cost of living than the Netherlands. He does this with all his data. Like poverty. He claims there is no poverty in America by comparing incomes with the third world.

He obviously has never heard about this place:

50 Years Into the War on Poverty, Hardship Hits Back

You compared cost of living, actually. And, why would you compare New York City with The Netherlands? If you want to compare US cities to Dutch cities, then compare Columbus Ohio or Charlotte, North Carolina to Amsterdam and Rotterdam. You wouldn't really compare the richest cities in the US, and with New York a population of 9 million people and compare to Amsterdam or Rotterdam, with populations of like 800,000. And you accuse me of making bad comparisons? Jesus Christ, Dutchy...

Of course I've heard of West Virginia. And, I'll reiterate that I was very clear that there is poverty in the US, as there is in every other country, including the Netherlands. West Virginia is one of the areas, you'll remember, that Donald Trump named as areas which have been neglected for far too long, and their industries have fallen down because of government policies over the past 40 years.

I never said there was no poverty in the US by comparing "incomes" in the US to third world countries. I compared standard of living, and i correctly pointed out that in the US, like most of western Europe, the people do not know poverty like it exists in the rest of the world. And, it is in that vein that I took issue with the "feisty Australian" who was going to come to the US and show that the US is an "outlier" from "the rest of the world" when it comes to poverty -- I.e. that it's worse here in the US. You apparently agree with that - that the US is worse on poverty than "the rest of the world." Not just a few rich western European first world countries and Canada/Oz/NZ. No - "the rest of the world."

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

Regardless, according to Hermit, nobody has argued that capitalism is not the best solution to poverty.

Double negatives are just so fucking messy...

Your argument is ridiculously simplistic - that capitalism is the answer to poverty, full stop, no other complications to be considered. And the main supporting argument is either about the bad things that happened under authoritarian Marxist rule (which does not simply equate to the absence of capitalism), or comparing wealthy first world nations that have benefitted from a host of historical and technological factors other than having a particular economic model with the rest of the world (where ironically, it is often rampant uber-capitalism is the true cause of their horrific poverty).

Where is capitalism the true cause of horrific poverty? That's actually an interesting point you make there. Let's examine it. Far from causing poverty, Capitalism has reduced it dramatically - http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/amazi ... le/2562224

I haven't alleged that there are no other complications to be considered, just that capitalism has lifted more people out of poverty than any other economic system, and it tends to do that, because it allows people the freedom to pursue their self-interest and it requires businesses to compete for customers. Without a capitalist system what system will you have? Will the system not allow people to own property or to make money running businesses, or to sell their labor and skill on the open market to competing enterprises? If you allow those things, you have capitalism. If you create a non-capitalist system, then those things go away, don't they?

EDIT - I would add, didn't I get lectured on some other threads on how the right controls the world, and all my harping on the left is pointed at a small, irrelevant, powerless group? Capitalism rules, doesn't it? The white, capitalist patriarchy, as some call it, has dominated for far too long. It's time to bring down capitalism, so said the Occupy Wall Street crowd, because capitalism has caused the problems in the world.... yet.... In 1820, the share of the global population living in poverty was 94 percent while 84 percent lived in "extreme" poverty. By 1992, the poverty rate had dropped to 51 percent, while the "extreme" poverty rate had dropped to 24 percent. Using a different measure of international poverty, the rate has dropped from 53 percent in 1981 to 17 percent in 2011 – representing the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history.

Now, if capitalism rules the day, and has controlled for so long - far too long -- then isn't it capitalism that did that? Or, are we to believe that the small bits of inroads made by the small, struggling group of largely irrelevant left-wingers has succeeded in reducing extreme poverty from 84% to 17%? Isn't it the productive explosion as a result of capitalism and free markets which brought necessary goods to needy people?

When you see government aid go to poor nations, what do we see? Despots taking the funds, and food aid rotting in warehouses, right? That's a huge scandal that's gone on for decades, hasn't it? The poor don't get the aid. However, bring those people a free market, and give parents the freedom to work and build for their families, and what do you get? A rising standard of living, a market for hard products and consumer goods, right? A vibrant economy in which most of the people participate -- together with the available resources and funds to help those at the bottom who need a boost, right?

[pErvinalia]

It is his way he uses data that really annoys me. It is obvious his data is cherry picked. For instance the cost of living. He uses the average of the whole of US. Cost of living is based on cities and areas.

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index

New York is 6th on the planet. San Francisco 7th. Washington DC is 9th. There are a further 10 major cities above Amsterdam. Yet he maintains the US has a lower cost of living than the Netherlands. He does this with all his data. Like poverty. He claims there is no poverty in America by comparing incomes with the third world.

He obviously has never heard about this place:

50 Years Into the War on Poverty, Hardship Hits Back

You compared cost of living, actually. And, why would you compare New York City with The Netherlands? If you want to compare US cities to Dutch cities, then compare Columbus Ohio or Charlotte, North Carolina to Amsterdam and Rotterdam. You wouldn't really compare the richest cities in the US, and with New York a population of 9 million people and compare to Amsterdam or Rotterdam, with populations of like 800,000. And you accuse me of making bad comparisons? Jesus Christ, Dutchy...

Of course I've heard of West Virginia. And, I'll reiterate that I was very clear that there is poverty in the US, as there is in every other country, including the Netherlands. West Virginia is one of the areas, you'll remember, that Donald Trump named as areas which have been neglected for far too long, and their industries have fallen down because of government policies over the past 40 years.

I never said there was no poverty in the US by comparing "incomes" in the US to third world countries.

Stop bullshitting. You wrote: "But, the reality is that the poor in the US are not experiencing poverty like the "rest of the world." If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world. The average American is a 1%-er in the world. "

And quoted this from an article: "The U.S. still fares very well on that score. On a global scale, the vast majority of Americans are either upper-middle income or high income. And many Americans who are classified as “poor” by the U.S. government would be middle income globally, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis."

And then, most damningly, this: "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."

[pErvinalia]

And, it is in that vein that I took issue with the "feisty Australian" who was going to come to the US and show that the US is an "outlier" from "the rest of the world" when it comes to poverty -- I.e. that it's worse here in the US. You apparently agree with that - that the US is worse on poverty than "the rest of the world." Not just a few rich western European first world countries and Canada/Oz/NZ. No - "the rest of the world."

Oh, and the "feisty Australian" never said what you keep attributing to him. It was actually an American. Alston hasn't made any comment on the issue yet. More misrepresentation from you.

[pErvinalia]

Exactly.

It's inconceivable that he can't understand why we are all so infuriated with him. We've all been trying to argue for nuance, and he's been consistently trotting out a false dichotomy.

Do not generalise.

I for one am not infuriated, but mildly amused at his attempts.

I've not trotted out a dichotomy.

Yes you have. And a ridiculously lopsided one at that. You've stated that the only two options are capitalism and socialism. You've made absolutely no acknowledgement that we run a system which is a mix of capitalistic and socialistic approaches.

Note, I'm not the one that suggests that regulation means "not capitalism," or that social welfare for the needy is "not capitalism." That's the folks who have been "infuriated" by me who are doing that.

Social welfare is the antithesis of capitalism. Not even you could equivocate it to be otherwise.

Hermit said nobody was disagreeing with me.

Virtually everyone is disagreeing with you in regards to a lot of what you attribute to "capitalism".

[Forty Two]

And, it is in that vein that I took issue with the "feisty Australian" who was going to come to the US and show that the US is an "outlier" from "the rest of the world" when it comes to poverty -- I.e. that it's worse here in the US. You apparently agree with that - that the US is worse on poverty than "the rest of the world." Not just a few rich western European first world countries and Canada/Oz/NZ. No - "the rest of the world."

Oh, and the "feisty Australian" never said what you keep attributing to him. It was actually an American. Alston hasn't made any comment on the issue yet. More misrepresentation from you.

I was summarizing - I've made that point over and over - and I correctly attributed the quotes. I'm not going to repost the entire article every time. Go. Fuck. Yourself. And, your asinine constant allegations of misrepresentations. I never said he said it - I was summarizing the article, and if you go back to where I brought it up, I referenced both people.

[pErvinalia]

You said "the feisty Australian ... was going to come to the US and show that the US is an "outlier" from the rest of the world when it comes to poverty". Nowhere does the UN or Alston say anything to preempt their investigation (other than quoting existing data). You are peddling bullshit rhetoric to try and paint what Alston is doing as some sort of radical political statement. Just stop it, man. Stop with the bullshit rhetoric.

[Brian Peacock]

And, it seems, you'd both rather keep an irrelevant dispute on the simmer than moving things forward.

[pErvinalia]

You can't move forward with someone like that. We've all spent the last 34 pages trying to introduce some nuance to the debate, and he's flat out ignored it all.

[Forty Two]

It is his way he uses data that really annoys me. It is obvious his data is cherry picked. For instance the cost of living. He uses the average of the whole of US. Cost of living is based on cities and areas.

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index

New York is 6th on the planet. San Francisco 7th. Washington DC is 9th. There are a further 10 major cities above Amsterdam. Yet he maintains the US has a lower cost of living than the Netherlands. He does this with all his data. Like poverty. He claims there is no poverty in America by comparing incomes with the third world.

He obviously has never heard about this place:

50 Years Into the War on Poverty, Hardship Hits Back

You compared cost of living, actually. And, why would you compare New York City with The Netherlands? If you want to compare US cities to Dutch cities, then compare Columbus Ohio or Charlotte, North Carolina to Amsterdam and Rotterdam. You wouldn't really compare the richest cities in the US, and with New York a population of 9 million people and compare to Amsterdam or Rotterdam, with populations of like 800,000. And you accuse me of making bad comparisons? Jesus Christ, Dutchy...

Of course I've heard of West Virginia. And, I'll reiterate that I was very clear that there is poverty in the US, as there is in every other country, including the Netherlands. West Virginia is one of the areas, you'll remember, that Donald Trump named as areas which have been neglected for far too long, and their industries have fallen down because of government policies over the past 40 years.

I never said there was no poverty in the US by comparing "incomes" in the US to third world countries.

Stop bullshitting. You wrote: "But, the reality is that the poor in the US are not experiencing poverty like the "rest of the world." If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world. The average American is a 1%-er in the world. "

And quoted this from an article: "The U.S. still fares very well on that score. On a global scale, the vast majority of Americans are either upper-middle income or high income. And many Americans who are classified as “poor” by the U.S. government would be middle income globally, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis."

And then, most damningly, this: "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."

That's comparing standard of living, dipshit. I did NOT argue that because the US has a median income of $59,000 a year that there is less poverty than in Europe where the median is like $37,000 per year, or in Bangladesh where they earn like $2 a day. I've been quite clear on this -- the dollar figures on incomes is not the complete picture. What's important is how people live. So, in a country where there is low income but everyone lives great, there would be very little actual poverty, but in a high income country where that money buys you nothing and people live destitute there would be a lot of poverty.

You're such a dick, man. And, you're just out to score points, not to understand. That's obvious. You want to say "Forty Two is misrepresenting ---as much as you can" because you're engaged in your admitted practice of trolling and badgering to try to push me off the forum. Your goal is to make sure your imagined "we" is poisoned against me.

The "most damning" phrase you 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" is not a comparison of "INCOMES" dumbass. It's a comparison of LIVING STANDARDS. You aren't getting it. There ARE NOT POOR IN THE THE US [or Western Europe, Canada, Oz] compared to "the rest of the world" - that's the point I'm making. Australians, like Americans, don't know what poverty is - not by experience. If you've ever been to, say, a South American country, you'll know exactly what I mean -- THEY have poverty. Venezuela has poverty. Bolivia. Ecuador. Brazil. Uruguay, Paraguay. They have poverty.

[Forty Two]

And, it seems, you'd both rather keep an irrelevant dispute on the simmer than moving things forward.

Good point.

[Forty Two]

You can't move forward with someone like that. We've all spent the last 34 pages trying to introduce some nuance to the debate, and he's flat out ignored it all.

Actually, you've ignored the nuance.

it's impossible to move forward, with someone like YOU, because you refuse to simply discuss issues - you make everything personal. It's your admitted modus operandi - remember - you like to drive people off forums, you like to troll them, and get a rise and get them suspended or banned. That's what you want to do, if people disagree with you.

I've seen you do it even to members of your imagined "we" -- someone generally agrees with you, fine. Step out of line, though, and your vitriol will be aimed at them. You can't discuss. You attack. You can't argue. You insult. It's your personality. You're just that kind of person.