Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[Nicolas Dorier]

Socialists want to see profits too. The difference is long term or short term profits. Libertarians only care about immediate profits.

This is false, libertarian protects the self-interest of human nature. Immediate profit is not always good for your Self-interest.
You favor short term profit over long term if you are unsure about the future.
Libertarian says that the only one that can decide if short term or long term profit is better is yourself, not a dogma, and not rates decided by the central bank.

Imagine I tell you : do you prefer 10$ now or 100$ in five year ?
If you are thirsty and need to drink now or die, then you will take now, without thinking twice.
If you are wealthy already, you will ask yourself about the inflation, the odd of the QE of the central bank will put the dollar down its knees, the odd you loose your 10$ bill when you will need it, the odd that I default on my promise to pay in five year. If you don't trust me, or the future, then you'll take profit now and spend it quickly as possible.

In both case you acted for your self interest.

[giantdragon]

Socialists want to see profits too. The difference is long term or short term profits. Libertarians only care about immediate profits.

This is false, libertarian protects the self-interest of human nature. Immediate profit is not always good for your Self-interest.

You libertarians should be more quiet when mentioning "human nature" to protect your ideas! Just because it must be not in your interests to provoke leftist biohackers!

[Nicolas Dorier]

You libertarians should be more quiet when mentioning "human nature" to protect your ideas! Just because it must be not in your interests to provoke leftist biohackers!

good point 
I did not know why altruism was so popular these days, people just got biologically hacked. I knew it ! Did not think gov would go that far ! 

[Ibian]

You libertarians should be more quiet when mentioning "human nature" to protect your ideas! Just because it must be not in your interests to provoke leftist biohackers!

good point 
I did not know why altruism was so popular these days, people just got biologically hacked. I knew it ! Did not think gov would go that far ! 

People are just talking their book. Most of us would not do well in a tougher society, politicians least of all. People who depend on handouts naturally want the handouts to continue, to be systemic.

[cbeast]

Libertarians' favorite moving goalpost is the term "altruism" and whether or not it is "human nature."

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

It occurs to me that a solution requires a problem. Why is poverty a problem? Someone define it in clear and non-emotional terms.

That's an interesting question.  But how can you remove the emotional component when one of the most fundamental goals in life is happiness?  If you want to completely remove emotions from the equation, then please explain to me why we should care about atrocities like the slaughter of innocent children.

Emotion can justify and rationalize anything. Money is ultimately about the movement of resources, a very fact-driven thing.

Emotion can certainly be abused, but so can logic.  I think a balance is necessary, where true compassion is a critical element of the emotional side.

I agree that money is an easily moveable/exchangeable form of resources/time/work.  But money is nothing but a tool to get happiness, even if for some that just means collecting it.

My take, after some thought: In a healthy economy money goes to those who produce or otherwise perform a useful function for society. The more productive the more money, the more useless the greater the poverty.

In a society where survival depends on maximizing the use of available resources this is obviously the case. We live in a time of abundance, so we no longer seek to maximize the use of resources. But it would still be desirable to do so, because everyone would be wealthier in real terms, if not in relation to eachother, which would make it possible to work fewer hours and spend more time on self-actualization which according to one school of thought is the way to happiness. It would also reduce the risk of economic collapse, ensuring that it is not a bubble-period of wealth but a sustained one far into the future.

Thus, in a healthy economy where the use of resources is maximized poverty is a good thing for society but a shitty thing for the individual; but it is also fair. Likewise, wealthy people would have earned their wealth so that too would be fair. And charity is always available for those of a socialist mindset, so there is nothing stopping you from giving your money away. But it would be voluntary, and not enforced at gunpoint as it is presently.

In a society where there is little or no relation between personal ability/use to society and the amount of money one has, poverty is a problem for wider society and wealthy people become villains. It also creates what some people call perverse incentives. I live in one of the biggest welfare nations in the world (Denmark). People who can't or won't work are paid enough every month to live a pretty decent life in exchange for little to no work. The more useless and difficult you present yourself the less is demanded of you. Thus, the optimum effort to income ratio is to be unemployed and unemployable, and as difficult to deal with as possible within the bounds of the rules.

Maximizing the use of resources would be great.  But that requires that everyone is concerned about the collective good, which doesn't seem to be the case a lot of the time.

Your ideal healthy economy does sound nice.  Reading between the lines, it sounds like you're saying that everyone would basically be able to choose how much wealth they get by choosing how much they want to work.  If you're poor, then it really is because you chose it; you had the opportunity for better but chose not to take it.

I think the issue is that there's a lot of abuse at both ends (poor and rich).  Too many people try to take advantage of the system instead of working.  And too many rich people use their wealth to buy power, which they use to collect more wealth in ways that usually aren't "fair," which leads to a villainous reputation.  Sadly, these stereotypes mask the poor people who really do need help and the rich people who do really good things with their wealth.

(Edit: hopefully that all makes sense.  I'm a little scattered-brained right now.)

[CEG5952]

I think "socialism" tends to be a red herring. Very much misunderstood. People might think it's inconsistent for me to be invested in BTC and to be anti-capitalist -- and it's sort of true. I just can't afford to be an ideological purist at this point in my life, for the sake of my family or myself. I just think the ideal is a society where people don't have power over one another. That means a conception of property that favors possession, use and occupancy over absentee accumulation. And "anarcho"-capitalists can harp on government all they want, but in my eyes, a private state is no better than a public one. When a landowner (and cumulatively, landowners) can draw lines on a map, declare their own laws and enforce them with violence, that's statism in my eyes.

[Ibian]

I think "socialism" tends to be a red herring. Very much misunderstood. People might think it's inconsistent for me to be invested in BTC and to be anti-capitalist -- and it's sort of true. I just can't afford to be an ideological purist at this point in my life, for the sake of my family or myself. I just think the ideal is a society where people don't have power over one another. That means a conception of property that favors possession, use and occupancy over absentee accumulation. And "anarcho"-capitalists can harp on government all they want, but in my eyes, a private state is no better than a public one. When a landowner (and cumulatively, landowners) can draw lines on a map, declare their own laws and enforce them with violence, that's statism in my eyes.

You may wish to hop into a time machine, I'm given to understand we turn into Eloi in the distant future. That's the only way your stateless society will come about.

Landowners can be fought against. A state, with a huge nationwide gang, and an army to back the gang up if it fails, can not.

[TaunSew]

The market cannot be ignored or you end up with a failing war communism or the article I posted about revolutionary Catalonia.

Regardless a lot of the root issues we see at the moment isn't due to capitalism but from accumulation, inflation and regulatory-tyranny.

 If someone is homeless in the United States then they get put into a homeless shelter or they sleep in some back alley.  If someone is homeless in Africa or the Middle East then they build themselves their own home.  The irony is if today laws were present back in the 1890s then some civil bureaucrat would deem all those farm homes to be "illegal constructions".

[abora]

Being a Capitalist or Socialist isn't the solution to poverty alleviation rather it's LIBERTY thru Democracy with freedom in all aspects of the economy.

[cbeast]

You may wish to hop into a time machine, I'm given to understand we turn into Eloi in the distant future. That's the only way your stateless society will come about.

Animals don't have states. Some of them have territorial boundaries for predation, but they are temporary. Families don't have economies, though some have a hierarchy of lineage. Aboriginal tribes were usually nomadic. There isn't any natural law that predisposes humans to live in predefined states.

[Ibian]

You may wish to hop into a time machine, I'm given to understand we turn into Eloi in the distant future. That's the only way your stateless society will come about.

Animals don't have states. Some of them have territorial boundaries for predation, but they are temporary. Families don't have economies, though some have a hierarchy of lineage. Aboriginal tribes were usually nomadic. There isn't any natural law that predisposes humans to live in predefined states.

Except, you know, for that pesky little detail of our brains. And families very much do have economies. As do individuals.

[Unluckyduck]

I think the ideal scenario is a mix of socialism and capitalist elements. Cause full out marxism is too extreme and there will always be greed, an innate human trait.

[Ibian]

I think the ideal scenario is a mix of socialism and capitalist elements. Cause full out marxism is too extreme and there will always be greed, an innate human trait.

Greed is the fundamental drive behind everything we do. And it exists in any system. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is that socialists are greedy for other peoples money, in the current implementation at gunpoint, while capitalists just want to keep what is theirs.

The solution is not to get rid of greed. Because greed is not a problem, and it's not possible anyway. Instead use a system where greed becomes a positive force.

[u9y42]

You may wish to hop into a time machine, I'm given to understand we turn into Eloi in the distant future. That's the only way your stateless society will come about.

Animals don't have states. Some of them have territorial boundaries for predation, but they are temporary. Families don't have economies, though some have a hierarchy of lineage. Aboriginal tribes were usually nomadic. There isn't any natural law that predisposes humans to live in predefined states.

Except, you know, for that pesky little detail of our brains. And families very much do have economies. As do individuals.

Our brains don't predispose us to live in a society that has a state - I'd argue that is very much a cultural issue, and a relatively recent one in our history, if you look closely. Besides, the example of Catalonia has been brought up a few times: after decades of anarchical experiments, the population there went on to create a stateless society for a couple of years.

[Ibian]

You may wish to hop into a time machine, I'm given to understand we turn into Eloi in the distant future. That's the only way your stateless society will come about.

Animals don't have states. Some of them have territorial boundaries for predation, but they are temporary. Families don't have economies, though some have a hierarchy of lineage. Aboriginal tribes were usually nomadic. There isn't any natural law that predisposes humans to live in predefined states.

Except, you know, for that pesky little detail of our brains. And families very much do have economies. As do individuals.

Our brains don't predispose us to live in a society that has a state - I'd argue that is very much a cultural issue, and a relatively recent one in our history, if you look closely. Besides, the example of Catalonia has been brought up a few times: after decades of anarchical experiments, the population there went on to create a stateless society for a couple of years.

Catalonia is not a world power.

Fact is that the bigger the society the bigger things we can create - such as indoor plumping and hot water, for example. Electricity too I guess. Now it might just be me, but I feel pretty predisposed to have a clean dwelling with useful amenities.

The problem is not the fact that we have a state, but the power and abilities we give it and the culture as a whole. The problem is that we are dying. We have created an ideology that encourages women to study and work during their most fertile years and to postpone having kids until they are older. As a result, we have less kids. More people are dying than are being born and it has been that way since around the 80s.

A welfare state that depends on taking money from those who work and giving it to those who do not requires a constant influx of young taxpayers, and we do not have it. Every western nation will collapse as a result of this. That's the problem we need to find a solution to, and there are only two ways. Either we need to have more kids, or we need to dismantle the welfare system. There are no other ways out at this point.

[giantdragon]

The solution is not to get rid of greed. Because greed is not a problem, and it's not possible anyway.

Are you really sure that greed cannot be eliminated in principle (even counting technology advancements in the future)? Can you bet your own Bitcoins to protect this argument?

A welfare state that depends on taking money from those who work and giving it to those who do not requires a constant influx of young taxpayers, and we do not have it. Every western nation will collapse as a result of this. That's the problem we need to find a solution to, and there are only two ways. Either we need to have more kids, or we need to dismantle the welfare system. There are no other ways out at this point.

Population decrease is not a problem while growth of productivity (automation and robotics) offset it.

[u9y42]

Our brains don't predispose us to live in a society that has a state - I'd argue that is very much a cultural issue, and a relatively recent one in our history, if you look closely. Besides, the example of Catalonia has been brought up a few times: after decades of anarchical experiments, the population there went on to create a stateless society for a couple of years.

Catalonia is not a world power.

Fact is that the bigger the society the bigger things we can create - such as indoor plumping and hot water, for example. Electricity too I guess. Now it might just be me, but I feel pretty predisposed to have a clean dwelling with useful amenities.

The problem is not the fact that we have a state, but the power and abilities we give it and the culture as a whole. The problem is that we are dying. We have created an ideology that encourages women to study and work during their most fertile years and to postpone having kids until they are older. As a result, we have less kids. More people are dying than are being born and it has been that way since around the 80s.

A welfare state that depends on taking money from those who work and giving it to those who do not requires a constant influx of young taxpayers, and we do not have it. Every western culture will collapse as a result of this. That's the problem we need to find a solution to, and there are only two ways. Either we need to have more kids, or we need to dismantle the welfare system. There are no other ways out at this point.

Sorry to bring it back to it, but Catalonia was able to maintain their infrastructure and build upon it - the idea that you need a central authority to perform the tasks you mention doesn't make sense. And yes, the fertility rate does seem to decline the more well developed the society, but I don't see it as exclusively translating to a choice between abolishing welfare or having more kids; why not moving towards some real form of socialism, and not just stopgap measures?

[TaunSew]

Did you read the article about revolutionary Catalonia?  Economically it was a failure and here's the paragraphs detailing what went wrong

Another problem faced by the CNT was that while many collectivized firms were bankrupt, they refused to use the banks because the financial institutions were under the control of the socialist UGT.

After the initial disruption, the unions soon began an overall reorganization of all trades, closing down hundreds of smaller plants and focusing on those few better equipped ones, improving working conditions. In the region of Catalonia, more than seventy foundries were closed down, and production concentrated around twenty four larger foundries.[24] The CNT argued that the smaller plants were less efficient and secure. In Barcelona, 905 smaller beauty shops and barbershops were closed down, their equipment and workers being focused on 212 larger shops.

I don't think there were any GDP figures for revolutionary Catalonia but from the description it sounds like their economy must had contracted by a great deal.

How was it that all those shops were profitable and operating before the civil war era but as soon as the anarchists took over and collectivized everything that most of them closed down?  Maybe 'working conditions improved' but I figure it was an overall net loss, especially if you were the one of the unemployed tradesmen or barbers who was previously working at one of the smaller shops.

revolutionary Catalonia was frankly one of the few examples of anarcho-syndicalism and it's not enough to make a definite conclusion.  Much like maybe one of the few examples of a Libertarian society was the old west in the 1870s and it was too long ago and born out of unique circumstances that it may not be relevant to a developed country in the present times.

[Ibian]

The solution is not to get rid of greed. Because greed is not a problem, and it's not possible anyway.

Are you really sure that greed cannot be eliminated in principle (even counting technology advancements in the future)? Can you bet your own Bitcoins to protect this argument?

Hypotheticals are not useful. I concern myself with what is possible now, not far into the future.

A welfare state that depends on taking money from those who work and giving it to those who do not requires a constant influx of young taxpayers, and we do not have it. Every western nation will collapse as a result of this. That's the problem we need to find a solution to, and there are only two ways. Either we need to have more kids, or we need to dismantle the welfare system. There are no other ways out at this point.

Population decrease is not a problem while growth of productivity (automation and robotics) offset it.

Several problems with this. First, automation leads to unemployment. A factory that once employed hundreds of people can now be run by robots and a few overseers and a repair crew. This would not be a problem if the reduced costs and increased profits were passed on to the formerly employed, but this is not the case. Rising overall production does not necessarily lead to a higher standard of living for the average person.

Second, a man without some form of work is a social pariah. Especially one living in a western nation who is forced to move in with someone else. It's another factor in why the fertility levels are dropping and the increasing levels of dysfunction in society. We don't need more productivity as much as we need employment, even if the overall national production falls as a result.