Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[Fray]

Some kid is born in a poor family, another kid is born in a rich family. The rich kid will have to give some to the poor one to rebalance and have a little bit more fair situation.

With capitalism the pool child has the chance of advancing to better himself and his economic situation. With solalism the pool child will always be poor and the rich child will likely have less wealth over time.

[1714926826]

1714926826

[1714926826]

1714926826

[1714926826]

1714926826

[1714926826]

1714926826

[Razick]

Some kid is born in a poor family, another kid is born in a rich family. The rich kid will have to give some to the poor one to rebalance and have a little bit more fair situation.

With capitalism the pool child has the chance of advancing to better himself and his economic situation. With solalism the pool child will always be poor and the rich child will likely have less wealth over time.

More importantly, there will gradually be an increase in the number of poor as living standards decrease over time.

By the way, if you support capitalism call it "free markets" because people tend to prefer free markets over capitalism. Also, free markets is more specific since to some people capitalism just means an economy in which money is used as opposed to the real definition where the meeting of buyers and sellers in a market to exchange goods and services for money allows the market to reach a natural price equilibrium without government intervention.

[korgayzubair]

I think Policies of governments and multinational businesses cause poverty. They are keeping people poor. They have the responsibilities to the poor people, but they are giving all facilities and power to only the richest people and multinational companies. We can influence the decisions

[Nicolas Dorier]

I think Policies of governments and multinational businesses cause poverty. They are keeping people poor. They are giving all facilities and power to only the richest people and multinational companies

I agree that government tends to favor big industries instead of young business, thus preventing free market. It is more politically profitable to do so.

They have the responsibilities to the poor people

Hell no, the poor should bear the responsibility for themselves, nobody has the responsibility to take them out of misery.
However, currently, government policy prevents them to get themselves out of misery. Only free market can permit them to trade and so, attract wealth.

The definition of wealth is often mistaken to be money.
But it is not, people create wealth every time they exchange real goods without coercion.

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.
This simple act is enough to get people out of poverty, and any barrier will prevent them to get out.
Throwing money at the problem does not create wealth for the poor.

When there is poverty, we should look no farther than where is the obstacle that prevent people from trading.

[boumalo]

I think Policies of governments and multinational businesses cause poverty. They are keeping people poor. They are giving all facilities and power to only the richest people and multinational companies

I agree that government tends to favor big industries instead of young business, thus preventing free market. It is more politically profitable to do so.

They have the responsibilities to the poor people

Hell no, the poor should bear the responsibility for themselves, nobody has the responsibility to take them out of misery.
However, currently, government policy prevents them to get themselves out of misery. Only free market can permit them to trade and so, attract wealth.

The definition of wealth is often mistaken to be money.
But it is not, people create wealth every time they exchange real goods without coercion.

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.
This simple act is enough to get people out of poverty, and any barrier will prevent them to get out.
Throwing money at the problem does not create wealth for the poor.

When there is poverty, we should look no farther than where is the obstacle that prevent people from trading.

People give power and money to the government to protect the weak and get services but the government sells this power and give this money to those that can afford to buy it and help them be re-elected, that is why it would be better not to give them the power and the money in the first place to avoid corruption or at least limit it

[Nicolas Dorier]

People give power and money to the government to protect the weak and get services but the government

This is flawed. If you want to give money and get services, trade with a business or a friend, you'll get worth your money.
Also government was never created with the intention of protecting the weak. It became like that when it was politically profitable to do it. And this is not what he should do, a government should be the only entity with the monopoly of coercion to enforce individual right, and stay at here.

[ajareselde]

Speaking as a persong whose country has gone from socialism to capitalism;
People(midle class,working families etc..) were more wealthy and happier in socialism than we are now in capitalism.

The only ones who benefites from the transition were the top cca 5% bussiness owners, and banks.
The people thought capitalism will bring more options and more wealth, and they were wrong, but the funny thing is that, without a civil war or some other sort of uprise, there is no going back.

You only know what u have when you loose it..

[twiifm]

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.

Not all trade is equal.  Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops.  People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money.  This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

[Nicolas Dorier]

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.

Not all trade is equal.  Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops.  People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money.  This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

Don't get me wrong, I don't deny the good of labor unions. They did lot of good and they are not against libertarian principles.
This is entirely normal that labor can collaborate together to put some pressure on industrialist. Industrialist does the same under cover.
What I deny is when the state subsides either them or when it enforces policies for the sake of one or the other.

But before labor unions, the person that worked in a sweatshop, decided it on his own free will that it was better for him than any alternative.

He valued money more than his labor. And the workshop valued his labor less than money.
Both worked together without coercion. And among all alternative, the worker chose with his free will the conditions.
The worker could go back in country side if it was so hard in the city.
The worker could learn to use his mind instead of his body, he could change city, but he did not.

Industrialist offered jobs that workers could not find in countries.
Also with the concentration of labor came urbanization and the abundance of economical activities (and thus goods), not found in country.
New villages and cities could be founded thanks to the need of labor of factories.

You can't say that both, the worker and industrialist destructed wealth by collaborating together. They both gained.

This is normal that both wanted to get more for their own work/money. But they were trading freely, and both of them needed the other.

Libertarians are not against people from collaborating together into a social structure so all members inside can personally benefit from the association.
As long as the members of this association have the right to disassociate freely, don't get subsidy of government, and don't use its coercion power for their own goal, this is beneficial. (These conditions are sadly not respected in France anymore)

One quote from Atlas Shrugged, from Francisco D'Antonia :

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak?
What strength do you mean?
It is not the strength of guns or muscles.
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think.
Is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it?
Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools?
By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?
...
Have you ever looked for the root of production?
Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes.
Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time.
Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions – and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

[stryker]

Some interesting thoughts here.  I find it all interesting as poverty only exists because currency exists... fiat or crypto the medium matter not.

[u9y42]

Some interesting thoughts here.  I find it all interesting as poverty only exists because currency exists... fiat or crypto the medium matter not.

Even if we went back to bartering or whatnot, chances are you would still have inequality - money is just another way of doing the same thing, but it's senseless to blame it for poverty.

[zedicus]

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.

Not all trade is equal.  Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops.  People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money.  This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

Labor unions were necessary a long time ago but are useless today, as they are only good for enriching themselves and the politicians they support. There are enough employment laws today that will protect workers from these kinds of abuses. Additionally workers are educated enough to be able to stand up to these kinds of abuses.

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.

Not all trade is equal.  Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops.  People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money.  This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

Labor unions were necessary a long time ago but are useless today, as they are only good for enriching themselves and the politicians they support. There are enough employment laws today that will protect workers from these kinds of abuses. Additionally workers are educated enough to be able to stand up to these kinds of abuses.

The pendulum swings back and forth.  Corporations were too greedy and tried to exploit people.  Labor unions were formed to combat that, and it worked pretty well.  But then the labor unions got greedy and tried to take too much from the corporations.  Labor unions have been disappearing, and corporations are getting greedy again.  Education has little to do with it.  You can't stand up to corporations when you have no better options.  For example, look at how corporations have slashed benefits over the last couple decades.  You can't stand up to a corporation and demand a pension when no other corporations are offering them.  And just look at how companies treat their employees now--they're just expendable labor.  There's no loyalty anymore.

[johny08]

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?

there is no general solution for the problem poverty. this topic has been discussed general and sophisticated in the 18th 19th century. the solution is that  everyone can fight everyday against it by being productive or not

socialists an capitalist are always supporting what is good for them. see europe politics in the 80es, 90es etc. you can vote how to distribute the money. you xan imagine by yourself what party will deside for what. whats new since the 90es and missing here is the enviromentist, whos saying its better for us spending money preventing enviroment destruction.politics is all about geting power to get your ideals supported.

[STforLife]

I believe in technocracy... social system will have to be hybrid of best from both socialsim and capitalism. But it will be more socialistic because there will have to be center of power, which will be run by software, computers dont cheat, nor steal, so no goverment will be doing evil deeds, more like scientist checking machines if everything is goin right way.

Majority of people wil be jobless, there will be no need for work by people other than science and technology research. And those people are not doing it for money, but from personal passion.

people will get money for buyng stuff from government and everything will be very cheap, thanks to effectivnes, technology brings so many options, that were never available. Fire, wheel, electricity...those are things that shape society...

[CoinsCoinsEverywhere]

I believe in technocracy... social system will have to be hybrid of best from both socialsim and capitalism. But it will be more socialistic because there will have to be center of power, which will be run by software, computers dont cheat, nor steal, so no goverment will be doing evil deeds, more like scientist checking machines if everything is goin right way.

Majority of people wil be jobless, there will be no need for work by people other than science and technology research. And those people are not doing it for money, but from personal passion.

people will get money for buyng stuff from government and everything will be very cheap, thanks to effectivnes, technology brings so many options, that were never available. Fire, wheel, electricity...those are things that shape society...

I hope the world is never run by technology.  Who would create all that software?  Wouldn't they be tempted to write it unfairly?  Computers can certainly cheat, steal, etc. if they are so programmed.  They also usually don't have compassion...but then again, a lot of politicians don't seem to either, so I guess that one's a wash.

[ajareselde]

The more u think about it, the more it seams that none of the options are good for solving the poverty.
In a world where technology is increasingly replacing human power, there are more and more manpower that is not needed.

It seams that there are simply too many of us, and that a good way to decrease poverty would be to implement rule of regulating birth rate, similar what china has.
Dont know how would that be sustainable when were talking about pension funds tho.

[zedicus]

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.

Not all trade is equal.  Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops.  People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money.  This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

Labor unions were necessary a long time ago but are useless today, as they are only good for enriching themselves and the politicians they support. There are enough employment laws today that will protect workers from these kinds of abuses. Additionally workers are educated enough to be able to stand up to these kinds of abuses.

The pendulum swings back and forth.  Corporations were too greedy and tried to exploit people.  Labor unions were formed to combat that, and it worked pretty well.  But then the labor unions got greedy and tried to take too much from the corporations.  Labor unions have been disappearing, and corporations are getting greedy again.  Education has little to do with it.  You can't stand up to corporations when you have no better options.  For example, look at how corporations have slashed benefits over the last couple decades.  You can't stand up to a corporation and demand a pension when no other corporations are offering them.  And just look at how companies treat their employees now--they're just expendable labor.  There's no loyalty anymore.

I disagree. I think people today are more informed as to what their rights are because some government regulations have been written well and have forced companies to disclose what workers' rights are in conspicuous places throughout the workplace. I work for a fortune 500 company when even the lowest paid workers make well over minimum wage and every hourly employee needs to take an online class about how workers must input the time into their time-cards accurately even if they worked unauthorized overtime. This company does not have any unions (that I am aware of), though they do pay very well and respects their workers and their rights.  

[Robert Paulson]

At a restaurant you trade money against a good meal. Wealth just got created.
You valued your money less than the meal, and the cook valued the meal less than the money. The sum of the difference of valuation is wealth.

Not all trade is equal.  Most of the time there is a power relationship where the strong exploits the weak.

An example is sweatshops.  People who need jobs are willing to allow themselves to be exploited because they need money.  This was common in 19th/ early 20th century before existence of labor unions

how is a sweatshop exploiting anyone if they agree to work there out of their own free will, without the sweatshop they would be worse off.

[giantdragon]

In a world where technology is increasingly replacing human power, there are more and more manpower that is not needed.
...
good way to decrease poverty would be to implement rule of regulating birth rate, similar what china has.

Birth rate control will have catastrophic consequences in long term (due to skewing of the young and old people ratio)! Even Chinese govt understand this and cancelled "One child family" laws.

Also low birth rate won't change average IQ of these children born, therefore technological unemployment will increase even if population drop by factor 10.