Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[giantdragon]

What?  USSR collapsed

I meant during its existence.

[tooil]

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.
To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required.

Absolutely FALSE for the true socialism (with planned economy)! USSR had created a lot of wealth without market economy.

What?  USSR collapsed

USSR collapsed not because of socialism. It collapsed because it lose the cold war and because the world was still trying to recovery from ww2 and raw material exporting county like Russia can only sell the commodities for low price.

[Bonam]

I meant during its existence.

Hardly. The people of the USSR lived a largely impoverished existence for the majority of the USSR's lifespan. And, to whatever extent any wealth was created, it was a result of what little free enterprise could still occur under the socialist structure.

For a better example, consider China. It remained largely impoverished until its government started introducing minor reforms that allowed traces of free enterprise into the system. The moment they did that, they got significant economic growth.

[gts476]

Techno Communism is still communism mate.

That is a red herring apropos the OP here... (and secondarily, you seem to be suggesting that what I wrote necessarily implied "communism", which is a strawman, but forget that).

I guess another way to state the solution is: forbid artificially manufactured scarcity, for then would poverty cease to be a sensible point of reference. Again, think of it this way: under what condition does poverty exist? When artificial scarcity emerges.

RBE (redundant, all economies are resources based) usually refers to community ownership of resources / means of production (communist), community control of means of distribution (oh so communist) no price mechanism (communist), allocation via 'super' computer (central planning - super communist) based on individual need not productive capacity(communist).

RBE is techno-communism run by e-lenin.

oh, and its been around for 40 years as an idea, RBE has no allocation algorithm for e-lenin. 40 years? still no algorithm.

[gts476]

Capitalism creates wealth. Socialism redistributes it.
To lift people's standards of living, new wealth must be created. Therefore, capitalism is required.

Absolutely FALSE for the true socialism (with planned economy)! USSR had created a lot of wealth without market economy.

What?  USSR collapsed

USSR collapsed not because of socialism. It collapsed because it lose the cold war and because the world was still trying to recovery from ww2 and raw material exporting county like Russia can only sell the commodities for low price.

how can you lose a 'cold' war? to many solders died? lol

[gts476]

"Free markets" will always need some sort of regulation, unless you want to destroy the planet for greed... because there will always be an idiot who thinks nobody will miss one tree less.

can't chop down trees you don't own on land you don't own, so nope! invalid.

[BCEmporium]

"Free markets" will always need some sort of regulation, unless you want to destroy the planet for greed... because there will always be an idiot who thinks nobody will miss one tree less.

can't chop down trees you don't own on land you don't own, so nope! invalid.

But you can do a LOT of damage on the land you "own"... including damage that may affect lands you don't own.
The planet is a huge set of chain events with limited resources, some restrain is needed and "free marketeers" are way more known for their greed then for their temperance.

[Nicolas Dorier]

"Free markets" will always need some sort of regulation, unless you want to destroy the planet for greed... because there will always be an idiot who thinks nobody will miss one tree less.

can't chop down trees you don't own on land you don't own, so nope! invalid.

But you can do a LOT of damage on the land you "own"... including damage that may affect lands you don't own.
The planet is a huge set of chain events with limited resources, some restrain is needed and "free marketeers" are way more known for their greed then for their temperance.

What if I want to damage the land, I own ? this is the definition on private property either I own it either I don't. There is no such thing as "you own it but you MUST to do that".
"some restrain is needed" and who knows better than me "the need of restrain" on my property ? If you don't want me to damage my land, you can, just give me voluntary money for it.
Good of "society" or "planet" ? no different than the mystic asking to do it for god. (Actually, I prefer a mystic doing it, at least he does not pretend to act for the good of other)

[BCEmporium]

What if I want to damage the land, I own ? this is the definition on private property either I own it either I don't. There is no such thing as "you own it but you MUST to do that".
"some restrain is needed" and who knows better than me "the need of restrain" on my property ? If you don't want me to damage my land, you can, just give me voluntary money for it.
Good of "society" or "planet" ? no different than the mystic asking to do it for god. (Actually, I prefer a mystic doing it, at least he does not pretend to act for the good of other)

What a statement of ignorance! That's why anarchy is just absurd!
You can't own anything without limits, the fact that you "own" (or believe to own, as you will certainly die and the land will remain there) something doesn't mean you can do whatever you please. You may decide to contaminate your land with mercury "just for fun" (Hey! In your mind that's "yours"), causing the land to be poisoned, eventually leaking to water and killing people in a miles radius...
Anarchy combined with ignorance is way too deadly to can ever even been thinking of!

For the notice, and for the absurdity about "good for planet" or "gods" statement of yours: You depend on the planet, the planet doesn't depend on you!

[Nicolas Dorier]

What if I want to damage the land, I own ? this is the definition on private property either I own it either I don't. There is no such thing as "you own it but you MUST to do that".
"some restrain is needed" and who knows better than me "the need of restrain" on my property ? If you don't want me to damage my land, you can, just give me voluntary money for it.
Good of "society" or "planet" ? no different than the mystic asking to do it for god. (Actually, I prefer a mystic doing it, at least he does not pretend to act for the good of other)

What a statement of ignorance! That's why anarchy is just absurd!
You can't own anything without limits, the fact that you "own" (or believe to own, as you will certainly die and the land will remain there) something doesn't mean you can do whatever you please. You may decide to contaminate your land with mercury "just for fun" (Hey! In your mind that's "yours"), causing the land to be poisoned, eventually leaking to water and killing people in a miles radius...
Anarchy combined with ignorance is way too deadly to can ever even been thinking of!

For the notice, and for the absurdity about "good for planet" or "gods" statement of yours: You depend on the planet, the planet doesn't depend on you!

It has nothing do to with anarchy, since anarchy does not protect individual right by central authority with monopoly of coercion (the definition of government for the libertarian, which I am)
And as libertarian, I believe that any violation of property should be sanctioned by government, and contamination of mercury that leak on other's property is definitively a violation, even in the libertarian thought.

But cutting the trees on my land does not violate the land of the neighbor. On the contrary, their tree will worth more.
So if I decide to cut all trees, put a building or scrap on it instead, it is my right, and I am the only one to judge if it is a good decision. Certainly not a bureaucrate.

[BCEmporium]

Let's see, "property" doesn't quite means "to own", means to "have the right of usage" to a certain degree.

Depends on what cutting trees in your land may result in. It could be just "your problem" or not, chains have to be looked up or the erosion on your land may cause your neighbor to lost all his land utility, get flooded and so on, or could simply means his trees will worth more. But this has to be checked on a per case basis, and to do that a public administration is needed with not bureaucrats but engineers.

[Timetwister]

how can you lose a 'cold' war? to many solders died? lol

Governments always blame anyone else for their mistakes. They love to blame speculators, for example. Or non-patriotic people, conspirators, "imperialists", etc.

[gts476]

Let's see, "property" doesn't quite means "to own", means to "have the right of usage" to a certain degree.

Depends on what cutting trees in your land may result in. It could be just "your problem" or not, chains have to be looked up or the erosion on your land may cause your neighbor to lost all his land utility, get flooded and so on, or could simply means his trees will worth more. But this has to be checked on a per case basis, and to do that a public administration is needed with not bureaucrats but engineers.

No private ownership? COMMUNIST!

[BCEmporium]

No private ownership? COMMUNIST!

The view that you can't own land, to a strict meaning of "owning", comes from the American Natives, not Communists. Communists have an economy based upon a State Monopoly.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Let's see, "property" doesn't quite means "to own", means to "have the right of usage" to a certain degree.

Depends on what cutting trees in your land may result in. It could be just "your problem" or not, chains have to be looked up or the erosion on your land may cause your neighbor to lost all his land utility, get flooded and so on, or could simply means his trees will worth more. But this has to be checked on a per case basis, and to do that a public administration is needed with not bureaucrats but engineers.

So for you "property" means paying for the privilege of the government to allow me to have "special right" on something.

For the libertarian "property" means that no one, even government, has any right to violate it.

The obligation of approval by a third party to do anything on my own territory is clearly a violation for the libertarian.
If what I do have bad consequences on neighborhood let me pay for the violation, settled by judge, not by favors of any dumbass that will extort money against the right to build on my property.

I understand that your definition of "property" is sadly becoming the norm.
This is why I won't buy such fake properties, that will just fall apart without maintenance, until the price drop because of that.
Better to buy some bitcoin, which I know, is a real property. And I will not spend it on any property that can be partially confiscated by the whim of any third party.

[BCEmporium]

Sorry if the planet doesn't suit your needs... but it's all we know and have.

Some damage can't be paid of, have to be prevented and enforced before come to be at all.

[Nicolas Dorier]

Sorry if the planet doesn't suit your needs... but it's all we know and have.

Some damage can't be paid of, have to be prevented and enforced before come to be at all.

On the contrary, the planet suit my need, I don't need the majority to approve my definition of property to benefit from it.
If the government does not suit my need, then I'll not buy into the scheme they plan, and believe that I own something when I don't.

Nobody force me to buy forest. So I won't.
Nobody force me to buy fiat, and I won't.
Nobody force me to keep money in a bank, and I won't.
If everybody does that, then the one in danger is government, I don't need its approval when I don't buy the things it subsidies.
If nobody does, I don't care, because I know exactly what I own, and know that no whim will take it away.

[BCEmporium]

We have to split things here, some kind of property is your and your heirs business alone. Like gold, bitcoin, fiat currencies and so on.
Now, about things which can damage the planet that makes you interacting with everybody else, therefore some moderation is needed. A bit like a car, you can run 100 mph+, but you endanger all bystanders around therefore the cops will try to stop you.

[LitecoinBoss]

The solution of poverty? ALIENS

[Nicolas Dorier]

We have to split things here, some kind of property is your and your heirs business alone. Like gold, bitcoin, fiat currencies and so on.
Now, about things which can damage the planet that makes you interacting with everybody else, therefore some moderation is needed. A bit like a car, you can run 100 mph+, but you endanger all bystanders around therefore the cops will try to stop you.

"Damage to the planet" is very subjective to the scientific expert of the day endorsed and financed by subsidies. I have no way to verify the veracity of the fact, only having a pure belief in "experts", so I decide to not believe for the same reason I don't believe in god.
Tell me to not do a thing "because it damages the planet" it sounds the same that telling me not to do because "god will be angry".

The road does not belong to me, so I must obey the rule, because I will always respect the rule of the landlord.
But if road were private, and I owned one, then I would not accept the right of the state to impose their rule on my road. (Except if I decide they are right on my standards)