Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[giveBTCpls]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

This is pretty dumb as an argument. None of the shit we do is "natural" if you start deconstructing stuff with such a mindset. Not even taking an actual shit is natural the way we do it now. For millions of years before civilization taking shits consisted on going on a forest and wiping your ass with a plant. So as you can see, unnatural things can be better than natural things.

[Zarathustra]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

This is pretty dumb as an argument. None of the shit we do is "natural" if you start deconstructing stuff with such a mindset. Not even taking an actual shit is natural the way we do it now. For millions of years before civilization taking shits consisted on going on a forest and wiping your ass with a plant. So as you can see, unnatural things can be better than natural things.

No, it's not better. All that stuff leads to more and more suicides.

The state, I call it, where all are poison-drinkers, the good and the bad: the state, where all lose themselves, the good and the bad: the state, where the slow suicide of all — is called "life." Thus Spoke Zarathustra

[Zarathustra]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. We might actually progress toward individualism as the technology progress enough.

No, collectivism is the perversion of the self-sufficient collectiv. Individualism is only possible within collectivism. In the nature (rain forest, arctic tundra) beyond the state you'll find neither collectivism nor individualism. Both are against human nature.

[profitofthegods]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. We might actually progress toward individualism as the technology progress enough.

No, collectivism is the perversion of the self-sufficient collectiv. Individualism is only possible within collectivism. In the nature (rain forest, arctic tundra) beyond the state you'll find neither collectivism nor individualism. Both are against human nature.

I kind of agree that both extremes are both against human nature and I also think unhealthy. So how would you characterize the middle ground - tribalism?

[Zarathustra]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Collectivism is the opposite of individualism. We might actually progress toward individualism as the technology progress enough.

No, collectivism is the perversion of the self-sufficient collectiv. Individualism is only possible within collectivism. In the nature (rain forest, arctic tundra) beyond the state you'll find neither collectivism nor individualism. Both are against human nature.

I kind of agree that both extremes are both against human nature and I also think unhealthy. So how would you characterize the middle ground - tribalism?

Yes. Tribalism is anarchy. Collectivism is patriarchy.

[Mike Christ]

Do you have some good reading about anarchist, because I'd like how they think to solve the problem of property without giving away to a central power the monopoly of violence.
If state does not exist, and I consider something to be my property, but you don't agree. What settle the dispute ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispute_resolution_organization

Also check out these works from Molyneux: Everyday Anarchy, and Practical Anarchy

[hashman]

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?

The difficult part is actually to keep some people in poverty despite the incredible abundance and productivity you have mentioned. 

Many people feel this is necessary because they live in the past and in deep mental illness, believing that other people suffering is just the way it should be.  Some people even think that others suffering makes them powerful.   

The main tools to keep poverty around are nations, authorities, borders, prisons, and fiat currencies.   

[noel57]

In my own view i will say neither systems are the answer to poverty alleviation its just a matter of the Government been open minded regardless of class or race.

[Nicolas Dorier]

In my own view i will say neither systems are the answer to poverty alleviation its just a matter of the Government been open minded regardless of class or race.

So you are socialist without knowing it. (Well statist is better word)
Because the libertarian think it is not the government that will answer to that question, but individuals themselves if you let them trade.

[Zarathustra]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Do you have some good reading about anarchist, because I'd like how they think to solve the problem of property without giving away to a central power the monopoly of violence.
If state does not exist, and I consider something to be my property, but you don't agree. What settle the dispute ?

Historically, before (and beyond) the state, there was self-sufficiency (no trade). But self-sufficiency is only possible within a nuclear community. Patriarchy (organized violence, state and church) destroyed those communities 10'000 years ago.

The best book I know is in German. Gerhard Bott: Die Erfindung der Götter.
Summary in english:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

[Dyklotz]

None of the above are the solution.

[MadAlpha]

I live in Finland, which is one of the most socialistic countries in the world, along with other scandinavian countries. I will try to explain the faults of socialism, based on my personal experience. I will try to present facts and actual figures, so we can think objectively, instead of just "believing" or "feeling" that socialism must be great. These figures are based on Finland, but the system is roughly same in any socialist country.

Lets begin by looking at the monthly wages (in EUR). These are just ballpark figures, but pretty accurate:

• 1000: A unemployed person who lives on social security.
• 2000: A person who works on a lower end job.
• 3000: A person who works on a higher end job at the junior level.
• 4000: A person who works on a higher end job at the senior level.
• 5000: A person who works at the first manager level.

Here we see the first hallmark of socialism. The manager only makes slightly more than a regular employee, even though his responsibilities are far greater.

Now, the employer pays about 1.3 times this amount (includes government run retirement fund). So for a wage of 2000, the employer pays about 2600. This, combined with very strong labor unions, is an incentive for employers not to hire people easily.

Many social security benefits work so that you immediately lose them if you do ANY work. So the person getting 1000 from social security can't do some small part time work to get another 500. This is a strong incentive to make people passive.

Now of course the employee does not get this full amount. Now we get to the great evil of socialism, which is progressive income tax. Lets look at the person who starts at 3000, and evolves through his career to 4000 and eventually to 5000.

• With the wage of 3000, after income tax, he gets about 2100.
• With the wage of 4000, after income tax, he gets about 2650.
• With the wage of 5000, after income tax, he gets about 3100.

On paper his wage went from 3000 to 5000 (increase of 2k), but the money he actually gets after taxes increased only by 1k. Note the employer still pays 1.3 times, so for a wage of 5k he pays 6500 (now more than twice what the employee actually gets after taxes).

So, after years (and decades) of working hard and advancing your career, while going from 3k to 5k might sound ok, the reality is you get only slightly more money. This is not a strong enough incentive to work hard and advance in your career.

Now after all this, our employee finally gets the money on his bank account, and wants to spend it on some goods and services. Guess what? There are huge taxes on everything. First of all, most goods and services have a Value Added Tax of 24%. Additionally, many products have their own separate tax. Lets take gasoline for an example. Over half of the price you pay for gasoline is tax, so you pay more for the tax than for the product itself.

So, when most of your money goes to paying taxes, what little is left will go to essential things like food, paying rent, and so on. Even after decades of working hard, many people still have to worry about having these basic needs met. There is very little money "left over" for savings and investment. This means that most people do not get to participate in "capital gains", such as the stock market (or bitcoin). This is a mechanism which ensures that the poor stay poor and building up your wealth over the years is extremely difficult.

After paying all these taxes, the next logical question becomes, what is the quality of the services the government provides? Lets take healthcare for example. We have a tax-funded public healthcare system and a private one. Each person is free to use either one. If you have a condition which does not require immediate attention, but bothers your life, you have to wait up to 3 months to see the public doctor from making an appointment. This forces many people to use the private healthcare system after all. So we are paying for a healthcare system through taxes, that we can't use in many cases, and end up "paying twice".

Socialism is marketed with words like "fairness" and "justice" and "helping the poor". I suspect the true intention is to make sure the poor stay poor, and middle class people do not rise to the upper class. Socialism does not build up society and economy, but keeps it in a stranglehold.

While capitalism will benefit some more than others in the short run, everyone is better off in the long run. When society and economy is built up, the living standards of everyone increase. Of the two systems, capitalism is the only one I would associate with words like "fairness" or "justice".

TD;DR: Socialism is evil and hurts the average working person the most.

[Pacowomo]

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?

Catalonia had the Pujol mafia steling on their shit for years, while they talked about morals, ethics, hard work cried about Spain stealing on their resources. Just lol.

[Nicolas Dorier]

I live in Finland, which is one of the most socialistic countries in the world, along with other scandinavian countries. I will try to explain the faults of socialism, based on my personal experience. I will try to present facts and actual figures, so we can think objectively, instead of just "believing" or "feeling" that socialism must be great. These figures are based on Finland, but the system is roughly same in any socialist country.

Lets begin by looking at the monthly wages (in EUR). These are just ballpark figures, but pretty accurate:

• 1000: A unemployed person who lives on social security.
• 2000: A person who works on a lower end job.
• 3000: A person who works on a higher end job at the junior level.
• 4000: A person who works on a higher end job at the senior level.
• 5000: A person who works at the first manager level.

Here we see the first hallmark of socialism. The manager only makes slightly more than a regular employee, even though his responsibilities are far greater.

Now, the employer pays about 1.3 times this amount (includes government run retirement fund). So for a wage of 2000, the employer pays about 2600. This, combined with very strong labor unions, is an incentive for employers not to hire people easily.

Many social security benefits work so that you immediately lose them if you do ANY work. So the person getting 1000 from social security can't do some small part time work to get another 500. This is a strong incentive to make people passive.

Now of course the employee does not get this full amount. Now we get to the great evil of socialism, which is progressive income tax. Lets look at the person who starts at 3000, and evolves through his career to 4000 and eventually to 5000.

• With the wage of 3000, after income tax, he gets about 2100.
• With the wage of 4000, after income tax, he gets about 2650.
• With the wage of 5000, after income tax, he gets about 3100.

On paper his wage went from 3000 to 5000 (increase of 2k), but the money he actually gets after taxes increased only by 1k. Note the employer still pays 1.3 times, so for a wage of 5k he pays 6500 (now more than twice what the employee actually gets after taxes).

So, after years (and decades) of working hard and advancing your career, while going from 3k to 5k might sound ok, the reality is you get only slightly more money. This is not a strong enough incentive to work hard and advance in your career.

Now after all this, our employee finally gets the money on his bank account, and wants to spend it on some goods and services. Guess what? There are huge taxes on everything. First of all, most goods and services have a Value Added Tax of 24%. Additionally, many products have their own separate tax. Lets take gasoline for an example. Over half of the price you pay for gasoline is tax, so you pay more for the tax than for the product itself.

So, when most of your money goes to paying taxes, what little is left will go to essential things like food, paying rent, and so on. Even after decades of working hard, many people still have to worry about having these basic needs met. There is very little money "left over" for savings and investment. This means that most people do not get to participate in "capital gains", such as the stock market (or bitcoin). This is a mechanism which ensures that the poor stay poor and building up your wealth over the years is extremely difficult.

After paying all these taxes, the next logical question becomes, what is the quality of the services the government provides? Lets take healthcare for example. We have a tax-funded public healthcare system and a private one. Each person is free to use either one. If you have a condition which does not require immediate attention, but bothers your life, you have to wait up to 3 months to see the public doctor from making an appointment. This forces many people to use the private healthcare system after all. So we are paying for a healthcare system through taxes, that we can't use in many cases, and end up "paying twice".

Socialism is marketed with words like "fairness" and "justice" and "helping the poor". I suspect the true intention is to make sure the poor stay poor, and middle class people do not rise to the upper class. Socialism does not build up society and economy, but keeps it in a stranglehold.

While capitalism will benefit some more than others in the short run, everyone is better off in the long run. When society and economy is built up, the living standards of everyone increase. Of the two systems, capitalism is the only one I would associate with words like "fairness" or "justice".

TD;DR: Socialism is evil and hurts the average working person the most.

You are not the worst, I live in France.
Here are the numbers:

As an entrepreneur, I wanted to wire to myself a 800€ salary.

For a 800€ salary my company had to pay 1458€. We can't opt out government services. (retirement savings I will never get, and public health care services)
The quality of the public health service are so bad, that I need to insure myself with private insurance company. (that can go from 50 to 150€ per month depending on the quality and your health record)

Then, consumption taxes are around 15% in average. Income taxes, 15% in average.
And on top of that, my company pays around 20% of corporate taxes. (can go higher if I earn more)

So, all in all, let's calculate what the government get from my labor (don't talk me about the "advantages" of public health care I will never benefit, or at the cost of my sanity dealing with the public services)

1458 - 800  = 658  //1458 is the cost of my company for all the "government services" going with my salary, can't unsubscribe
658 - (20% * 1458) = 366    //This is the money I don't have to pay as corporate taxes, because it decrease my benefit
366 + (15% * 800)  = 486   //My income taxes
486 + (15% * 800) = 606    //Consumption taxe

So, on 1458 I made with my own labor, I am paying a total of 606 end to end to government.
And you know what ? I have nothing to complain about.
If I improve my total personal income and salary, I raise the income taxes, and corporate taxes.
Then I can get some other taxes if I get rich enough on top of that.
Gerard Depardieu, one of our most famous actor paid a total of 80%, and had expatriated from france because of it.

What is making me crazy, is that with those 606 I am giving to the government, I make it stronger, more the time pass, the more they worsen my condition.
Now I have 3 solutions :
-Shut my mouth and work harder to pay harder, and make them stronger,
-Decrease my standard, and profit from the system, (if I don't give myself a salary, I can get money from government that is more than the 800€ I paid myself)
-Looking for alternatives, (Expatriating in another country is one option I am considering now, given most of my work can be remotely done, I don't care about borders)

In any case I will not lower my standard, nor work for my own destruction.

[giantdragon]

I live in Finland, which is one of the most socialistic countries in the world, along with other scandinavian countries.

Finland and other Scandinavian countries have so called "capitalist socialism", i.e. a market economy and private entrepreneurship combined with high taxes and welfare. True socialism is completely different and assumes planned economy with state-owned enterprises.

Socialism is evil and hurts the average working person the most.

I would completely agree that Scandinavian "capitalist socialism" ("welfare state") is the worst system ever existed! But a version of socialism with planned economy is completely different and can be suitable for some people who simply will never fit into market system.

[wasserman99]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Do you have some good reading about anarchist, because I'd like how they think to solve the problem of property without giving away to a central power the monopoly of violence.
If state does not exist, and I consider something to be my property, but you don't agree. What settle the dispute ?

Historically, before (and beyond) the state, there was self-sufficiency (no trade). But self-sufficiency is only possible within a nuclear community. Patriarchy (organized violence, state and church) destroyed those communities 10'000 years ago.

The best book I know is in German. Gerhard Bott: Die Erfindung der Götter.
Summary in english:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

There are still a very small number of self sufficient communities in Africa. The problem with these kinds of communities is that their standard of living is much lower then even the poorest parts of the world. I think the reason for this is because when trade between countries and communities is done it is possible to realize efficiencies that are not possible in small groups when only one or two people is doing a certain task.

[botany]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Do you have some good reading about anarchist, because I'd like how they think to solve the problem of property without giving away to a central power the monopoly of violence.
If state does not exist, and I consider something to be my property, but you don't agree. What settle the dispute ?

Historically, before (and beyond) the state, there was self-sufficiency (no trade). But self-sufficiency is only possible within a nuclear community. Patriarchy (organized violence, state and church) destroyed those communities 10'000 years ago.

The best book I know is in German. Gerhard Bott: Die Erfindung der Götter.
Summary in english:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

There are still a very small number of self sufficient communities in Africa. The problem with these kinds of communities is that their standard of living is much lower then even the poorest parts of the world. I think the reason for this is because when trade between countries and communities is done it is possible to realize efficiencies that are not possible in small groups when only one or two people is doing a certain task.

Not just efficiencies of scale, when trade happens freely, everybody/country does what they do best. This results in maximum output.

[Gargulan]

Capitalism and Socialism (which is collectivism) are unnatural rise and fall constructs. Beyond collectivism you'll find self-sufficiency (anarchy), which was the natural state of human being for a million and more years. Civilization (collectivism) is only a short anomaly within the history.

Do you have some good reading about anarchist, because I'd like how they think to solve the problem of property without giving away to a central power the monopoly of violence.
If state does not exist, and I consider something to be my property, but you don't agree. What settle the dispute ?

Historically, before (and beyond) the state, there was self-sufficiency (no trade). But self-sufficiency is only possible within a nuclear community. Patriarchy (organized violence, state and church) destroyed those communities 10'000 years ago.

The best book I know is in German. Gerhard Bott: Die Erfindung der Götter.
Summary in english:

http://gerhardbott.de/das-buch/summary-in-english.html

There are still a very small number of self sufficient communities in Africa. The problem with these kinds of communities is that their standard of living is much lower then even the poorest parts of the world. I think the reason for this is because when trade between countries and communities is done it is possible to realize efficiencies that are not possible in small groups when only one or two people is doing a certain task.

Not just efficiencies of scale, when trade happens freely, everybody/country does what they do best. This results in maximum output.

Tribalism in African community can not reach economic of scale because they close down the gate to outsiders. This is also true in Hindu and Muslim societies and the reason for backwardness.

European countries and US letting "close culture" in not only create a problem for the local community in the long term. Refusal to assimilate will also create tension to a diverse country.

[MadAlpha]

You are not the worst, I live in France.
Here are the numbers:

As an entrepreneur, I wanted to wire to myself a 800€ salary.

For a 800€ salary my company had to pay 1458€. We can't opt out government services. (retirement savings I will never get, and public health care services)
The quality of the public health service are so bad, that I need to insure myself with private insurance company. (that can go from 50 to 150€ per month depending on the quality and your health record)

Then, consumption taxes are around 15% in average. Income taxes, 15% in average.
And on top of that, my company pays around 20% of corporate taxes. (can go higher if I earn more)

So, all in all, let's calculate what the government get from my labor (don't talk me about the "advantages" of public health care I will never benefit, or at the cost of my sanity dealing with the public services)

1458 - 800  = 658  //1458 is the cost of my company for all the "government services" going with my salary, can't unsubscribe
658 - (20% * 1458) = 366    //This is the money I don't have to pay as corporate taxes, because it decrease my benefit
366 + (15% * 800)  = 486   //My income taxes
486 + (15% * 800) = 606    //Consumption taxe

So, on 1458 I made with my own labor, I am paying a total of 606 end to end to government.
And you know what ? I have nothing to complain about.
If I improve my total personal income and salary, I raise the income taxes, and corporate taxes.
Then I can get some other taxes if I get rich enough on top of that.
Gerard Depardieu, one of our most famous actor paid a total of 80%, and had expatriated from france because of it.

What is making me crazy, is that with those 606 I am giving to the government, I make it stronger, more the time pass, the more they worsen my condition.
Now I have 3 solutions :
-Shut my mouth and work harder to pay harder, and make them stronger,
-Decrease my standard, and profit from the system, (if I don't give myself a salary, I can get money from government that is more than the 800€ I paid myself)
-Looking for alternatives, (Expatriating in another country is one option I am considering now, given most of my work can be remotely done, I don't care about borders)

In any case I will not lower my standard, nor work for my own destruction.

Yeah, I have heard France is one of the worst countries to live in when it comes to taxes.

I suspect being taxed to death is a strong incentive for people to get into cryptos.

[Mightycoin]

None of ways could completely remove poverty from any countries over a little period of time,it's the matter of literacy and political stability of the country.