Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[BitCoinNutJob]

The causes of poverty are manifold. War, disease, famine and unemployment being the big players. We can overcome this problem by doing following ideas:-
1. Employment generation
2. Drawing on various social institutions to fund poverty fighting programs e.g. charities, research institutions, U.N. , non-profit organizations, universities.
3. Transparency in government spending
4. Canceling impossible to repay world debts
5. Prioritizing programs that target fundamental human rights
6. Taxing the rich more and the poor less
7. Building self-sufficient economies
8. Education
9. Involvement of the media
10. Microfinancing

I like your rational point of view.   The only question is how do we execute?  Through private enterprise or govt programs or both?

Need to build a resource allocating decentralized computer system.  People + power always seems to equal corruption.

[Harley997]

Solution to poverty = practical education.

When there are people who create wealth, then there is wealth. Wealth is what farmers farm, miners mine, engineers create and scientist invent. Socialism cultivates an collective society, where capitalism cultivates an individualistic society. The biggest drawback of most socialist countries is central planning and over regulated markets.
A country tends to be wealthy when those who create wealth are valued. I think that both tradition and cultural background are the biggest factors for poverty.

This is true.

The issue is that a lot of people are just too lazy to want to work and earn their way

[arbitrage001]

Solution to poverty = practical education.

When there are people who create wealth, then there is wealth. Wealth is what farmers farm, miners mine, engineers create and scientist invent. Socialism cultivates an collective society, where capitalism cultivates an individualistic society. The biggest drawback of most socialist countries is central planning and over regulated markets.
A country tends to be wealthy when those who create wealth are valued. I think that both tradition and cultural background are the biggest factors for poverty.

This is true.

The issue is that a lot of people are just too lazy to want to work and earn their way

Lack of motivation is the symptom of socialism and not the cause.

[boumalo]

Solution to poverty = practical education.

When there are people who create wealth, then there is wealth. Wealth is what farmers farm, miners mine, engineers create and scientist invent. Socialism cultivates an collective society, where capitalism cultivates an individualistic society. The biggest drawback of most socialist countries is central planning and over regulated markets.
A country tends to be wealthy when those who create wealth are valued. I think that both tradition and cultural background are the biggest factors for poverty.

This is true.

The issue is that a lot of people are just too lazy to want to work and earn their way

Lack of motivation is the symptom of socialism and not the cause.

The bigger the government the bigger the corruption and the waste; they look only at what they will get but not at the cost or how better the money could have been used

The solution is to have non coercitive exchanges in free markets

[Daniel91]

Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?
I think that both - Socialism or Capitalism have good and weak points.
Capitalism is more oriented to the owners and capital, what is good but less oriented to the workers, what is bad.
Socialism is more oriented toward workers but less toward owners and capital.
WE need balance approach and more market control by the government, in my opinion.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?
I think that both - Socialism or Capitalism have good and weak points.
Capitalism is more oriented to the owners and capital, what is good but less oriented to the workers, what is bad.
Socialism is more oriented toward workers but less toward owners and capital.
WE need balance approach and more market control by the government, in my opinion.

Their is no both.
We never had capitalism.
And as long as someone decide what labor is worth, and what my business is worth we can never reach the so called equilibrium of Adam Smith.

Take for example the black death in the 14th century.
The black death made labor so scarce by killing peasants that price of labour rose very high.
Nobles and owners, instead of acknowledging it, asked to the government to enforce low wage, which the government did.

The government prevented wealth to go from Nobles and owners to Peasants by coercion.
And you will admit this is not right, and you are right. But not from the same reason I think.
The reason why it is bad is not that they enforced low wages. It is that they enforced what a wage was worth instead of waiting for profit and price of labor to get to equilibrium.

A capitalist will not necessary endorse that. Even if it would help him to get more profit. It is also in its self interest
The principle of a capitalist (precisely libertarian) is that no third party should decide of a valuation between two people that exchange value for value. (in this particular case Labor for Money)

In fact, we oppose capitalism to socialism because we are brainwashed to think that labour and owner have contradictory interest.
This is not true. In a free market, Owner need Labour and Labour need Owner. The over supply of one, decrease the supply of the other. The Black Death is a typical example that show that owner needs labour.
Any attempt to control what the value of capital or labour is will create friction that would never happen otherwise.
I live in a socialist country (France) and I traveled a lot. What I have seen is that in countries where government does not protect neither capital neither workers, both are happy and working together. (Switherland)

Nowadays, don't ever say that you can't change from labour to profit if you decide to do so.
We are in a knowledge economy where all you need to sell is your brain, no need for factories anymore. Will you sell your time or earn a profit ?
In a free market, you would do both depending on the price of labor and capital.

There is no good and weak points. Labors are not naturally against owners this is an artificial dichotomy created by government regulation.

You might say I'm confused about Capitalism and Libertarian. I am not, but this is a false dichotomy, a false question, that can only drive to false answer. The real one is Libertarian and Socialism.
Do you believe that someone should tell you what your time is worth except yourself ? (And take commission on that)
Do you believe that someone should tell you what your capital is worth except yourself ? (And take commission on that)
If yes to any of them, you are not a socialist. But that does not mean you are for "bosses".

[bluemountain]

Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?
I think that both - Socialism or Capitalism have good and weak points.
Capitalism is more oriented to the owners and capital, what is good but less oriented to the workers, what is bad.
Socialism is more oriented toward workers but less toward owners and capital.
WE need balance approach and more market control by the government, in my opinion.

This would be impossible.

Socialism and Capitalism are two opposite types of economies. Socialism takes money from the successful and gives to the lazy while capitalism rewards hard work.

Capitalism is obviously the answer as the lazy will be punished and the hard working will be rewarded. 

[Robert Paulson]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

[giantdragon]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

It's plausible that people may be no fully equal, but history shows the Colt will equalize them all when too much concentration of wealth happens!

[freedomno1]

Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?
I think that both - Socialism or Capitalism have good and weak points.
Capitalism is more oriented to the owners and capital, what is good but less oriented to the workers, what is bad.
Socialism is more oriented toward workers but less toward owners and capital.
WE need balance approach and more market control by the government, in my opinion.

Capitalism is obviously the answer as the lazy will be punished and the hard working will be rewarded.  

Then apply it to a bank and an argument called to big to fail
Banks will be rewarded in bad times and good times while the hard working will not be rewarded by it but lose their assets.
Socialism is not communism though got to lower the intensity there.

[u9y42]

Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?
I think that both - Socialism or Capitalism have good and weak points.
Capitalism is more oriented to the owners and capital, what is good but less oriented to the workers, what is bad.
Socialism is more oriented toward workers but less toward owners and capital.
WE need balance approach and more market control by the government, in my opinion.

This would be impossible.

Socialism and Capitalism are two opposite types of economies. Socialism takes money from the successful and gives to the lazy while capitalism rewards hard work.

Capitalism is obviously the answer as the lazy will be punished and the hard working will be rewarded.  

You do realize that not everyone that gets punished in capitalism is necessarily lazy, and not everyone that is successful is necessarily a hard worker (or even productive), right? This also completely ignores different starting conditions for everyone: being born to a wealthy family and having more access to education and resources will give you an edge others won't have, further distorting the playing field.

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

I'm not sure what definition of poverty you're operating under, but it doesn't seem like it would be most people's definition. I do agree that it would tend to bring everyone to the same level however.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?
I think that both - Socialism or Capitalism have good and weak points.
Capitalism is more oriented to the owners and capital, what is good but less oriented to the workers, what is bad.
Socialism is more oriented toward workers but less toward owners and capital.
WE need balance approach and more market control by the government, in my opinion.

Capitalism is obviously the answer as the lazy will be punished and the hard working will be rewarded.  

Then apply it to a bank and an argument called to big to fail
Banks will be rewarded in bad times and good times while the hard working will not be rewarded by it but lose their assets.
Socialism is not communism though got to lower the intensity there.

This is not capitalism, it is interventionism... from state.
In a free market, they would be dead before they could gain so much power.
Confiscation is not the solution, the solution is to let them die. The root of evil is people thinking banking money is equal to dollar whereas the convertibility deposit/dollar is artificial enforced.

Baillout is an effect of socialism, not capitalism... Let's baillout "for the good of society".

[unpure]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

Social and economic background and culture have more to do with how much wealth a person can accumulate.

[ajareselde]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

There is solution to poverty, and if you think that smarter people are all rich, ure wrong.
Kapitalism benefits only those who were born rich, and makes it easy for them to acumulate more wealth, while alot of smart persons never get the chance even in decent education.

I am somewhat middle class, and i know alot of rich people who are insanely dumb, and alot of smart, but poor people, who never got their chance in life.

[Nicolas Dorier]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

There is solution to poverty, and if you think that smarter people are all rich, ure wrong.
Kapitalism benefits only those who were born rich, and makes it easy for them to acumulate more wealth, while alot of smart persons never get the chance even in decent education.

I am somewhat middle class, and i know alot of rich people who are insanely dumb, and alot of smart, but poor people, who never got their chance in life.

Nobody can be smaller than his money.
Dumb people looses money, except if protected by government.
You can be born rich, you can be sure that without a productive and smart person, this money will be redistributed without the government having to do anything.

A smart person attracts money by his productivity.
If you are smart and not rich, then it is because you hit an artificial wall set in place by the government or company which regulate what you salary should be.
If you can't get paid more if you want to, then you are not as smart as you say compared to your concurrence.

The really smart and productive person, does not care if it is socialism or capitalism, he will accumulate money in both.
But the problem of socialism is that it keeps people dumb by distorting their real value in the market place through salary control and regulation.

[Robert Paulson]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

There is solution to poverty, and if you think that smarter people are all rich, ure wrong.
Kapitalism benefits only those who were born rich, and makes it easy for them to acumulate more wealth, while alot of smart persons never get the chance even in decent education.

I am somewhat middle class, and i know alot of rich people who are insanely dumb, and alot of smart, but poor people, who never got their chance in life.

capitalism benefits those who produce goods and services that people want to buy, you don't have to be smart, you just need to produce something that people need.
if you are born rich but also a fool you will lose all your money either by eventually spending it all or by badly investing it.

[thriftshopping]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

There is solution to poverty, and if you think that smarter people are all rich, ure wrong.
Kapitalism benefits only those who were born rich, and makes it easy for them to acumulate more wealth, while alot of smart persons never get the chance even in decent education.

I am somewhat middle class, and i know alot of rich people who are insanely dumb, and alot of smart, but poor people, who never got their chance in life.

capitalism benefits those who produce goods and services that people want to buy, you don't have to be smart, you just need to produce something that people need.
if you are born rich but also a fool you will lose all your money either by eventually spending it all or by badly investing it.

The opposite of this is true as well. If you are born poor, but are smart then you will earn a lot of money with capialism.

[giantdragon]

The opposite of this is true as well. If you are born poor, but are smart then you will earn a lot of money with capialism.

There are more chances to win in a lottery than become rich for the poor now!

[scryptasicminer]

There is no solution to poverty.
we are not all equal, some people are smarter and more capable than others and will always be richer.
socialism doesn't doesn't take people out of poverty, it drags the successful down to poverty.

There is solution to poverty, and if you think that smarter people are all rich, ure wrong.
Kapitalism benefits only those who were born rich, and makes it easy for them to acumulate more wealth, while alot of smart persons never get the chance even in decent education.

I am somewhat middle class, and i know alot of rich people who are insanely dumb, and alot of smart, but poor people, who never got their chance in life.

capitalism benefits those who produce goods and services that people want to buy, you don't have to be smart, you just need to produce something that people need.
if you are born rich but also a fool you will lose all your money either by eventually spending it all or by badly investing it.

Good points.

People who think his wallet size has anything to do with the size of his brain is clearly delusional.

People who are born into rich family usually squander it all on useless crap (nice car, shallow girl, etc) is my observation.

[libivan]

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?

Less State means less incompetence, less corruption, less problems. Governments do more bad than good after all, and should only have restricted powers, limited to the minimum necessary.

Socialism/Statism will only make poverty worse. Poverty will be solved the moment people start giving importance and value to work. Many people prefer not to work, but only to receive free benefits form their governments, acting like spoiled adolescents. It is the statism that keeps people from developing, they want us to be eternal dependents and treat us as if we were stupid.

Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Thomas Paine