Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[gts476]

I only can say is there is no solution for poverty. Lets just face reality

1 billion people got out of extreme poverty in china in the last 30years by chance?

Must be because in the last 30 years because china has become more communist!

[notme]

not with these two systems, I think is still one more system could be an alternative economic system is an islamic economic system, with its system of zakat, the Islamic economic system can ensure poor people in a country will be reduced, even so there are no more poor people in a country, this is a charity system of cross-subsidy system where the rich will subsidize the poor until the poor are able to meet their needs, zakat system is not only to give money but give a program funded from zakat, the charity receives will run the program so that he can return back the money the charity, so that eventually the receiving charity can be a person who gives alms
hopefully This system could be an alternative system that replaces both the economic system ...  

there is literally pages of well reasoned arguments about why capitalism solves poverty in here but you start with 'not with these two systems' and end with Islamic modelled economy?

gtfo.

Then why do the capitalist nations all have significant portions of their population living in poverty?  Besides, Zakat and interest free loans could exist in a capitalist economy, and if it did it would likely have a positive effect on reducing poverty.

[gts476]

not with these two systems, I think is still one more system could be an alternative economic system is an islamic economic system, with its system of zakat, the Islamic economic system can ensure poor people in a country will be reduced, even so there are no more poor people in a country, this is a charity system of cross-subsidy system where the rich will subsidize the poor until the poor are able to meet their needs, zakat system is not only to give money but give a program funded from zakat, the charity receives will run the program so that he can return back the money the charity, so that eventually the receiving charity can be a person who gives alms
hopefully This system could be an alternative system that replaces both the economic system ...  

there is literally pages of well reasoned arguments about why capitalism solves poverty in here but you start with 'not with these two systems' and end with Islamic modelled economy?

gtfo.

Then why do the capitalist nations all have significant portions of their population living in poverty?  Besides, Zakat and interest free loans could exist in a capitalist economy, and if it did it would likely have a positive effect on reducing poverty.

1. Capitalist nations have no problems with poverty, rather nations you are describing as capitalist are by definition not capitalist at all, but socialist.

2. We already have 0% interest thanks too central banks, how's that working out for poverty?

[B1tc01n5]

We probably need a brand new system, something in between i reckon.

[gts476]

We probably need a brand new system, something in between i reckon.

All kinds of nope.

Consider the USA.

Started out capitalistic, very small government, the USA.

Now very communistic, very large government, the USSA.

If you want an 'in between' of the system, your just saying you want to wind the clock back to a time when the capitalistic/communistic mix was a little more in favour of capitalism.

Then then the clock starts ticking and low and behold, government gets bigger and fatter and more communistic and boom! your back to this thread all over again.

[BCEmporium]

Why people just read half of statements?
Islamic banking doesn't charge interest... but this ain't all! Islamic bank charges commission for transactions, making it way more expensive than interest-based banking and put the burden at the wrong side - depositors. Basically nobody will want to have an account there.
Zakat is the same as old Christian charity, common during Middle Ages, and it never prevented any poverty, it's just a rudimentary version of welfare.

[justahack]

I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

[Erdogan]

I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.

[gts476]

I have another year left at university studying physics, I'm going to take an elective class from the school of politics and economics on socialism and then I'm going to fail it.

When I fail my class, I'm going to demand that other peoples grades be redistributed for the benefit of my own, so that people who got 1st class grades have them taxed down to a 2:1 and my grade is raised up to a pass.

#SolutionToPoverty

[Erdogan]

I have another year left at university studying physics, I'm going to take an elective class from the school of politics and economics on socialism and then I'm going to fail it.

When I fail my class, I'm going to demand that other peoples grades be redistributed for the benefit of my own, so that people who got 1st class grades have them taxed down to a 2:1 and my grade is raised up to a pass.

#SolutionToPoverty

And if this destroys the university, all students now in concentration camps, you have made your point...

[justahack]

I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.

I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.

[gts476]

I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.

I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.

If we accept that god gave people compassion then we accept that people are compassionate.

If people are compassionate then they need not be forced to act in a compassionate manner.

Given people need not be forced to act in a compassionate manner there is no requirement for a forced social safety net.

Private charity is more effective than state forced redistribution will ever be, private charity will help those deserving.

After all, what else is welfare but charity for assholes?

[justahack]

I agree the state-supported system needs a kick in the pants. But I've never been convinced private charity would be sufficient. Truly, I'm open to it and I'd love to see the experiment play out somewhere in the world. But I think throwing out government would be a mistake.

[Nicolas Dorier]

I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.

I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.

So pay now for your own social safety net for what can happen to you tomorrow. The non forced version is called insurance, and embraced by free market.
We just don't want to be forced into it.
There is no need for charity, and insurance is not a charity, and provide your so called safety net.

No, I don't need safety net for unemployment, because I know I will never be unemployed, so why should I pay for it ?  (but I don't mind people protecting themselves with it and paying for it)
For health ? Ok, I would pay, since it does not depend on me.
But a fucking bureaucrat taking the decision to submit to one, another or both against my free will, "for my protection" is what libertarian are arguing about.

We probably need a brand new system, something in between i reckon.

There is no in between, either you are free to pay for the services you want, either you are forced to at the point of the gun.
There is no compromise possible.

[Erdogan]

I think some blend of the two is best. Capitalism is human nature, as communist countries have discovered. But an unfettered market creates some losers, too. Some redistributive social policy is needed.

Man, get some sense, check out reality and take a standpoint. Really.

Capitalism creates largely the same level of income for people with the same productive capacity (meaning workers with skills have more) at the maximum level that humanity can sustain, AND some rich people.

Communism creates the same level of income for all, at a level that continually diminishes, EXCEPT for the few people that has positioned themselves to administer all the sameness. To keep the sameness, the productive capacity of society has to be destroyed, with it, millions of people also have to be destroyed, literally, as in killing.

I must have missed something. Did I endorse communism? Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature. But survival of the fittest is also nature. Does that mean we ignore the losers and let them reek in the gutter? Nature, or God, also gave us compassion and intellect. We have the means. It would be inhuman not to have a social safety net.

You had a wishywashy middle ground standpoint.

[giantdragon]

Far from it; socialism is contrary to human nature. The free market IS human nature.

Right-wingers, be more cautious with the words about human nature! Sooner of later biohackers will definitely listen you

[MygodBTC]

We need a Resource Based Economy, google it.

[gts476]

We need a Resource Based Economy, google it.

This has come up already.

(RBE == Communism) != A_solution;

[BCEmporium]

Why not let this topic die?
Let's sum this up:

Libertarians: let them die and rot.

Socialists: welfare.

Religious: charity.

Which of them solves poverty? In the bad way only libertarians. The others just assume a constant flow of the poor.

[gts476]

Why not let this topic die?
Let's sum this up:

Libertarians: let them die and rot.

Socialists: welfare.

Religious: charity.

Which of them solves poverty? In the bad way only libertarians. The others just assume a constant flow of the poor.

It isn't dead because of gross misrepresentations of the arguments of capitalism and libertarianism, like this shit you just pulled.