Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[Ron~Popeil]

The basic premise of this thread and it's questions are shallow and misleading.

Poverty is also a state of mind and a symptom of a larger issue. Key solution to poverty is not a political ideology, but progress in national and individual character, in addition to economic policies. Framing poverty as a root cause rather than a symptom that it is can whitewash the problem.

Problem and its root cause are always the ones you have most trouble accepting, or even contemplating that it exists. Some of the 'poor' in US, for example, get a rude awakening when they go abroad and try to lecture real poverty stricken people with their sob stories of 'discrimination', 'oppression', or better yet, 'unfathomable poverty'.

Socialism and pure capitalism are two side of the same rotten coin - but i'd say properly implemented capitalism at least gives people a chance, while socialism is even a bigger fairy tail of failure and denial while giving people the illusion of equality.

Differences in talents, circumstances of birth, or economic background, unless strictly caste based, are natural character of a society no matter when and where you are. Key problem is whether they are surmountable or actively and willfully suppressed by the state.

Relative disparity is not poverty.

Socialism is a childish fairy tail, and capitalism is a merciless and cold reality. But only one of them deals with reality of human nature, and that is certainly not socialism.

Nicely put. There will always be haves and have nots. No system will provide equal results but we should strive for equal chance and let everyone compete according to their talents and work ethic. 

[ReserviorHunt]

The basic premise of this thread and it's questions are shallow and misleading.

Poverty is also a state of mind and a symptom of a larger issue. Key solution to poverty is not a political ideology, but progress in national and individual character, in addition to economic policies. Framing poverty as a root cause rather than a symptom that it is can whitewash the problem.

Problem and its root cause are always the ones you have most trouble accepting, or even contemplating that it exists. Some of the 'poor' in US, for example, get a rude awakening when they go abroad and try to lecture real poverty stricken people with their sob stories of 'discrimination', 'oppression', or better yet, 'unfathomable poverty'.

Socialism and pure capitalism are two side of the same rotten coin - but i'd say properly implemented capitalism at least gives people a chance, while socialism is even a bigger fairy tail of failure and denial while giving people the illusion of equality.

Differences in talents, circumstances of birth, or economic background, unless strictly caste based, are natural character of a society no matter when and where you are. Key problem is whether they are surmountable or actively and willfully suppressed by the state.

Relative disparity is not poverty.

Socialism is a childish fairy tail, and capitalism is a merciless and cold reality. But only one of them deals with reality of human nature, and that is certainly not socialism.

Nicely put. There will always be haves and have nots. No system will provide equal results but we should strive for equal chance and let everyone compete according to their talents and work ethic. 

Equal chance on the most basic of things - not whatever you feel is your due. It's a slippery slope.

[CEG5952]

The conflation of socialism with Marxist-Leninism -- very common around here -- is very misguided. Firstly, there is a strong argument to be made that Marxism has never existed in practice. Only perversions of it such as Stalinism and Maoism. More importantly, there are longstanding socialist traditions that very much oppose both government and capitalism -- namely, anarchism.

[freedomno1]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

Well considering these Three Bias
1. Capitalism in modern countries is an imperialist resource acquisition strategy
2. Economic development tends to be motivated by presenting favorable conditions for exploitation in the developing country primarily funded by corporations
3. Geo-strategic interests tend to involve wars in capitalistic countries and why their is no wars among capitalism as they fight for these economic resources, as proven through the USA and its interference in Latin America shown through Pinochet and similar military dictatorships and its recent escapade into the Middle East including creating a civil war by taking Gadaffi out to access water reserves and oil supplies, albeit he did fund terrorist groups but was the Stabilizing force in the country.

I come to the conclusion that a Socialist system not a Communist one has potential if done correctly and properly managed the question is can it be done reliably.

It does seem to be working far better than Latin American Capitalism did though if we are looking at a testing ground the Left Revolution or the Pink Tide has improved social and economic circumstances far more than the previous 20-30 years of capitalistic dictatorships or neo liberalism has.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011913141540508756.html

I guess to an extent strong state control transitioning to a more open system once the economic system is developed is a good route although there will be issues through the process.

[ReserviorHunt]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

Well considering these Three Bias
1. Capitalism in modern countries is an imperialist resource acquisition strategy
2. Economic development tends to be motivated by presenting favorable conditions for exploitation in the developing country primarily funded by corporations
3. Geo-strategic interests tend to involve wars in capitalistic countries and why their is no wars among capitalism as they fight for these economic resources, as proven through the USA and its interference in Latin America shown through Pinochet and similar military dictatorships and its recent escapade into the Middle East including creating a civil war by taking Gadaffi out to access water reserves and oil supplies, albeit he did fund terrorist groups but was the Stabilizing force in the country.

I come to the conclusion that a Socialist system not a Communist one has potential if done correctly and properly managed the question is can it be done reliably.

It does seem to be working far better than Latin American Capitalism did though if we are looking at a testing ground the Left Revolution or the Pink Tide has improved social and economic circumstances far more than the previous 20-30 years of capitalistic dictatorships or neo liberalism has.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011913141540508756.html

I guess to an extent strong state control transitioning to a more open system once the economic system is developed is a good route although there will be issues through the process.

It is human nature to exploit and conquer, in one form or another.

Aljazeera as an 'unbiased' source? Only in some naive, easily manipulated leftist wet dream. It's actually a form of bias and manipulation at its worst: By attempting to take advantage of the moral ambiguity of the west, it advances a racial and ethnic ignorance of the arab world as some twisted form of 'enlightenment'.

Our world is not rational, and it is certainly not right according to what makes you feel reasonable.

By villianizing the west and its core principles while deceving themselves about their own intentions, they conveniently create a situation where they are the heroes (actually rapists and thieves who manipulate people to willingly submit), while others are 'imperialists', 'racists', 'oppressors' etc.

It's pretty transparent.

[Leina]

It is human nature to exploit and conquer, in one form or another.

Aljazeera as an 'unbiased' source? Only in some naive, easily manipulated leftist wet dream. It's actually a form of bias and manipulation at its worst: By attempting to take advantage of the moral ambiguity of the west, it advances a racial and ethnic ignorance of the arab world as some twisted form of 'enlightenment'.

Our world is not rational, and it is certainly not right according to what makes you feel reasonable.

By villianizing the west and its core principles while deceving themselves about their own intentions, they conveniently create a situation where they are the heroes (actually rapists and thieves who manipulate people to willingly submit), while others are 'imperialists', 'racists', 'oppressors' etc.

It's pretty transparent.

Yes. People who think Muslim is a religion of peace is denying reality. They are getting sympathy now because they happen to be underdog at this given time in the history.

Not saying the west is that much different. As ReserviorHunt pointed out: Socialism and pure capitalism are two side of the same rotten coin.

[freedomno1]

Hey everyone. In today's developed world where we have glasses that can access the internet and robots that can think on their own, it is a shame that there are still people in parts of the world living under 1$ a day.
What can governments do to end poverty in their countries? Is a solution possible under capitalism? Or did Karl Marx had the right idea with his recommendation of a socialist government?

Well considering these Three Bias
1. Capitalism in modern countries is an imperialist resource acquisition strategy
2. Economic development tends to be motivated by presenting favorable conditions for exploitation in the developing country primarily funded by corporations
3. Geo-strategic interests tend to involve wars in capitalistic countries and why their is no wars among capitalism as they fight for these economic resources, as proven through the USA and its interference in Latin America shown through Pinochet and similar military dictatorships and its recent escapade into the Middle East including creating a civil war by taking Gadaffi out to access water reserves and oil supplies, albeit he did fund terrorist groups but was the Stabilizing force in the country.

I come to the conclusion that a Socialist system not a Communist one has potential if done correctly and properly managed the question is can it be done reliably.

It does seem to be working far better than Latin American Capitalism did though if we are looking at a testing ground the Left Revolution or the Pink Tide has improved social and economic circumstances far more than the previous 20-30 years of capitalistic dictatorships or neo liberalism has.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/09/2011913141540508756.html

I guess to an extent strong state control transitioning to a more open system once the economic system is developed is a good route although there will be issues through the process.

It is human nature to exploit and conquer, in one form or another.

Aljazeera as an 'unbiased' source? Only in some naive, easily manipulated leftist wet dream. It's actually a form of bias and manipulation at its worst: By attempting to take advantage of the moral ambiguity of the west, it advances a racial and ethnic ignorance of the arab world as some twisted form of 'enlightenment'.

Our world is not rational, and it is certainly not right according to what makes you feel reasonable.

By villianizing the west and its core principles while deceving themselves about their own intentions, they conveniently create a situation where they are the heroes (actually rapists and thieves who manipulate people to willingly submit), while others are 'imperialists', 'racists', 'oppressors' etc.

It's pretty transparent.

I certainly wasn't going to use a Fox News article or a Right Wing Think tank on that one
Fox news is just a Farce MSNBC has a strong wing alignment so I would say not to trust any one source of news.

That said did have a second source just to appease you
http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-pink-tide-in-latin-america-an-alliance-between-local-capital-and-socialism/5333782

As for Aljazeera being bias of course all media has it's bias I have seen a ton of crud spewed from American media as well.
That said just because it is from X source does not mean one can disregard the contents of the article just because it is from one source or another, you cannot presume anything without reading it.

Now if you complained about why X article is wrong on these points, I would have a point to examine and debate you with.

(The rest of your points are basically a bias the same type I just used on MSNBC and Fox.)

(The question is what is your point and what does this have to do with the Left Tide in Latin America)

By villianizing the west and its core principles while deceving themselves about their own intentions, they conveniently create a situation where they are the heroes (actually rapists and thieves who manipulate people to willingly submit), while others are 'imperialists', 'racists', 'oppressors' etc.

By the same token to respond in kind I can say

The American populace has been deceived countless times, with their own government spying on them and stealing data, exploiting other countries for its resources, and even Hillary Clinton saying she wants to see Latin America like it was in the 1970's and all that implies.
Does that mean all sources are bias on an issue, simply put you need to take into account the content and engage with it not just a puppet slam on anything you disagree on without proof.

That said since I am on the topic of media the other end RT does Russian propoganda but puts a perspective the way American Journalism is not about THE NEWS but what makes the news, in other words sensationalism or distracting news.
After all if its not on the news it didn't happen right.

A good example is Rob Ford in Toronto and his ongoing Crack Rehab versus the aftermath of the assault on Libya and the American promise of Democracy, or the problems Iranian citizens and students face having their bank accounts closed and frozen by Chase Bank and the Bank of America because of the country they were born in.

A polite way to squander an issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensationalism

To surmise human nature is not to exploit and conquer but to innovate and explore, the conquering is just an exchange now whether it is cultural assimilation or territorial and whether the result is positive or negative are never certain.
In the modern day our media options and choices are not absolute in any single lens nor should they be.
To be objective means looking at reality from various approaches and facts.

Hence the three Bias I brought into the argument now what were yours  

@ Leina do agree that Muslims get sympathy but that same sympathy was extended to the Jews who gained Israel and are slowly conquering the Palestine, so time can change the outcome.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U3by9FoEFB8

(Anyways if the coin is rotten on both sides then the side that works best for each country is the one they should go with, not a one size fits all)

Edit In: One caveat though Leina not all Muslims are evil just like not all Jews are so be careful with absolute statements
Another example would be the Crusades in the 1400's and the Christians versus the Muslims
Similar to saying all Christians were people who think Christianity is a religion of peace and are denying reality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stedingen

[johnyj]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

[cbeast]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

[Ibian]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She, and sport stars, and rock stars, and so on, are distractions that stop people from looking at the things that matter. Like the fertility rate, inflation, debt and its relation to the exponential function, and politics.

[bitsmichel]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

Sometimes there is enough production but does not reach all the individuals, in that case they are also poor. So this rule can be broken;

[Ron~Popeil]

The basic premise of this thread and it's questions are shallow and misleading.

Poverty is also a state of mind and a symptom of a larger issue. Key solution to poverty is not a political ideology, but progress in national and individual character, in addition to economic policies. Framing poverty as a root cause rather than a symptom that it is can whitewash the problem.

Problem and its root cause are always the ones you have most trouble accepting, or even contemplating that it exists. Some of the 'poor' in US, for example, get a rude awakening when they go abroad and try to lecture real poverty stricken people with their sob stories of 'discrimination', 'oppression', or better yet, 'unfathomable poverty'.

Socialism and pure capitalism are two side of the same rotten coin - but i'd say properly implemented capitalism at least gives people a chance, while socialism is even a bigger fairy tail of failure and denial while giving people the illusion of equality.

Differences in talents, circumstances of birth, or economic background, unless strictly caste based, are natural character of a society no matter when and where you are. Key problem is whether they are surmountable or actively and willfully suppressed by the state.

Relative disparity is not poverty.

Socialism is a childish fairy tail, and capitalism is a merciless and cold reality. But only one of them deals with reality of human nature, and that is certainly not socialism.

Nicely put. There will always be haves and have nots. No system will provide equal results but we should strive for equal chance and let everyone compete according to their talents and work ethic. 

Equal chance on the most basic of things - not whatever you feel is your due. It's a slippery slope.

What I mean by an equal chance is not being born into the previous generation's debt and with a tilted playing field in favor of an entrenched political and financial aristocracy. 

[cbeast]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She, and sport stars, and rock stars, and so on, are distractions that stop people from looking at the things that matter. Like the fertility rate, inflation, debt and its relation to the exponential function, and politics.

So being rich is a distraction that justifies being rich? Seems legit.

[twiifm]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur.  Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business

[cbeast]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur.  Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business

She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things.

[twiifm]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur.  Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business

She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things.

The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself.  Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems

[cbeast]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur.  Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business

She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things.

The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself.  Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems

I feel sorry for you. You can't imagine a world where profit is more important than wealth. I mean real wealth. You cannot imagine true wealth that is hindered by profiteering. We could have been colonizing the solar system and be building worlds by now if it weren't for such small mindedness of so many. Fortunately we know how to filter folks like you with brain scan technology. Don't worry, you can be re-educated.

[twiifm]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur.  Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business

She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things.

The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself.  Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems

I feel sorry for you. You can't imagine a world where profit is more important than wealth. I mean real wealth. You cannot imagine true wealth that is hindered by profiteering. We could have been colonizing the solar system and be building worlds by now if it weren't for such small mindedness of so many. Fortunately we know how to filter folks like you with brain scan technology. Don't worry, you can be re-educated.

earth to cbeast.  earth to cbeast.  Come back to reality. 

[cbeast]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur.  Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business

She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things.

The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself.  Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems

I feel sorry for you. You can't imagine a world where profit is more important than wealth. I mean real wealth. You cannot imagine true wealth that is hindered by profiteering. We could have been colonizing the solar system and be building worlds by now if it weren't for such small mindedness of so many. Fortunately we know how to filter folks like you with brain scan technology. Don't worry, you can be re-educated.

earth to cbeast.  earth to cbeast.  Come back to reality. 

I'm guessing you are in your early 20's. Maybe someday you'll learn to form arguments into sentences that can persuade people instead of  flinging puerile epithets like your own poo.

[twiifm]

Consumption > production : Poor
Consumption < production : Rich

What does Paris Hilton produce?

She's made herself into a brand & she's an entrepreneur.  Just because she acts dumb doesn't mean she doesn't know about business

She's an entrepreneur that produces nothing and brands it as exclusive nothingness. This is why we can't have nice things.

The reason you don't have nice thing is because of yourself.  Don't blame Paris Hilton for your problems

I feel sorry for you. You can't imagine a world where profit is more important than wealth. I mean real wealth. You cannot imagine true wealth that is hindered by profiteering. We could have been colonizing the solar system and be building worlds by now if it weren't for such small mindedness of so many. Fortunately we know how to filter folks like you with brain scan technology. Don't worry, you can be re-educated.

earth to cbeast.  earth to cbeast.  Come back to reality. 

I'm guessing you are in your early 20's. Maybe someday you'll learn to form arguments into sentences that can persuade people instead of  flinging puerile epithets like your own poo.

Like how you form arguments?