Solution to poverty - Socialism or Capitalism?

[Ibian]

Still not convinced poverty is a problem that needs to be fixed. Or even a problem.

[gts476]

Still not convinced poverty is a problem that needs to be fixed. Or even a problem.

Agreed, state fabrication to justify its continued existence.

We don't have any more need for state protection so now we have crusades against adjectives!

Was on poverty!
War on drugs!
War on terror!

Lol

[Bonam]

We don't have any more need for state protection so now we have crusades against adjectives!

Was on poverty!
War on drugs!
War on terror!

Lol

Poverty, drugs, and terror are nouns, not adjectives.

[gts476]

We don't have any more need for state protection so now we have crusades against adjectives!

Was on poverty!
War on drugs!
War on terror!

Lol

Poverty, drugs, and terror are nouns, not adjectives.

Cool, never was good at English (thanks state school system! Good job) Genuine thanks for the correct though x

Let the war on scary sounding nouns continue unabated until these nouns are so utterly defeated they become adjectives!

[boumalo]

We need a Resource Based Economy, google it.

We need less government and more freedom

[Rayban34]

Far too loaded question to be honest

Some people are hard-wired to take, others to give.

There will always be people that benefit from the vulnerability of others. Sadly, it's in our nature unless we evolve to a better state of being.

I quite like the idea of giving every human alive a basic, comfortably living wage to sustain themselves on. The choice to go out to work and earn more is theirs. That would solve a lot of problems IMO - no more getting any old job because you need one, no more trying to stab someone in the back to afford basic food and water, etc etc.

It's proven that when you alleviate poverty - crime and corruption go down.

If I had my way everyone would have all they wanted, people would only work because they enjoyed it, and there would be absolutely no hatred to your fellow human because of race/religion/nationality/sex/sexual orientation/possessions etc etc

Ahhh, but, I'm just an idealist! Not a Marxist before you start! There's no ultimate equality in my dream, nor in any reality.

[Bonam]

Far too loaded question to be honest

Some people are hard-wired to take, others to give.

There will always be people that benefit from the vulnerability of others. Sadly, it's in our nature unless we evolve to a better state of being.

I quite like the idea of giving every human alive a basic, comfortably living wage to sustain themselves on. The choice to go out to work and earn more is theirs. That would solve a lot of problems IMO - no more getting any old job because you need one, no more trying to stab someone in the back to afford basic food and water, etc etc.

It's proven that when you alleviate poverty - crime and corruption go down.

If I had my way everyone would have all they wanted, people would only work because they enjoyed it, and there would be absolutely no hatred to your fellow human because of race/religion/nationality/sex/sexual orientation/possessions etc etc

Ahhh, but, I'm just an idealist! Not a Marxist before you start! There's no ultimate equality in my dream, nor in any reality.

Main problems with this:

1) People who do work and pay taxes to provide the "basic income" for everyone else resent that they have to support so many leeches. They can move to other jurisdictions, lobby for changes, etc.

2) If the basic income is comfortable enough, more and more people will choose that option and not do much productive work. As fewer and fewer people do productive work, eventually their productivity will not be high enough to support everyone else, and the whole system will collapse.

3) A basic income does not prevent crime or eliminate poverty, as some people will spend all of their income on drugs/alcohol/gambling and then still not have enough for shelter/food. A better option than a basic income might be a rent voucher and a food card, although even these are open to abuses of various kinds.

All that being said, as technology progresses and the need for humans to work grows ever less, it is likely that productivity will be so high that providing everyone with the basic necessities of life will be a negligible expense. But these people will still be considered to be in "poverty" because the definition of poverty is always relative to the times. The "poor" in America today live like kings compared to the poor of a few centuries ago.

[Ibian]

Far too loaded question to be honest

Some people are hard-wired to take, others to give.

There will always be people that benefit from the vulnerability of others. Sadly, it's in our nature unless we evolve to a better state of being.

I quite like the idea of giving every human alive a basic, comfortably living wage to sustain themselves on. The choice to go out to work and earn more is theirs. That would solve a lot of problems IMO - no more getting any old job because you need one, no more trying to stab someone in the back to afford basic food and water, etc etc.

It's proven that when you alleviate poverty - crime and corruption go down.

If I had my way everyone would have all they wanted, people would only work because they enjoyed it, and there would be absolutely no hatred to your fellow human because of race/religion/nationality/sex/sexual orientation/possessions etc etc

Ahhh, but, I'm just an idealist! Not a Marxist before you start! There's no ultimate equality in my dream, nor in any reality.

Who pays for it?

[Rayban34]

Far too loaded question to be honest

Some people are hard-wired to take, others to give.

There will always be people that benefit from the vulnerability of others. Sadly, it's in our nature unless we evolve to a better state of being.

I quite like the idea of giving every human alive a basic, comfortably living wage to sustain themselves on. The choice to go out to work and earn more is theirs. That would solve a lot of problems IMO - no more getting any old job because you need one, no more trying to stab someone in the back to afford basic food and water, etc etc.

It's proven that when you alleviate poverty - crime and corruption go down.

If I had my way everyone would have all they wanted, people would only work because they enjoyed it, and there would be absolutely no hatred to your fellow human because of race/religion/nationality/sex/sexual orientation/possessions etc etc

Ahhh, but, I'm just an idealist! Not a Marxist before you start! There's no ultimate equality in my dream, nor in any reality.

Main problems with this:

1) People who do work and pay taxes to provide the "basic income" for everyone else resent that they have to support so many leeches. They can move to other jurisdictions, lobby for changes, etc.

2) If the basic income is comfortable enough, more and more people will choose that option and not do much productive work. As fewer and fewer people do productive work, eventually their productivity will not be high enough to support everyone else, and the whole system will collapse.

3) A basic income does not prevent crime or eliminate poverty, as some people will spend all of their income on drugs/alcohol/gambling and then still not have enough for shelter/food. A better option than a basic income might be a rent voucher and a food card, although even these are open to abuses of various kinds.

All that being said, as technology progresses and the need for humans to work grows ever less, it is likely that productivity will be so high that providing everyone with the basic necessities of life will be a negligible expense. But these people will still be considered to be in "poverty" because the definition of poverty is always relative to the times. The "poor" in America today live like kings compared to the poor of a few centuries ago.

Yeah, you have good and valid points there. That's why I said it was complex.

First of all we need to sort of evolve. Before that transition we will just continue hating each other and feeling negative about things we don't have, or have to give without our consent.

So, in answer to you:

1) We will always pay taxes regardless of who benefits from them. And actually, it's not as if we "know" where it's all going. I doubt the unemployment bill is as much as they say it is - I bet about 0.001 of the taxes from my salary goes to unemployment. Which isn't much. Wars, government salaries and local government salaries are a whole lot more. As I said, evolving to care for your fellow being is paramount (not saying you don't, just a general statement)

2) That is correct. Although the people that do choose to work will be 10,000% more productive. I have worked in a lot of shitty jobs before and have done because I've "had" to. In almost all of them I've dicked around as much as I could to pass the time. I'm now in a job I absolutely love, and have been realistically wanting all my life - guess what? No clock watching, always eager to get the job done, excitement when getting to work in the morning. This would be straight up, good work ethic for everyone.

3) Yes, there will always be addicts - however there will be less chance of getting into addiction because of having everything you want. Usually addictions start because of low income families, unhappy parents friends > which lead to a huge generation hand me down abuse cycle. It could snuff out shit like that. People are less likely to be unhappy when they have a lot of things. Ok, it will never cease it completely, but the alleviation would be great. Also, it would stop the need for crime to pay for stuff people cant afford - because they have everything. Who will need to do that?

Hi Ibian,

Again, another valid point.

We would, corporations would, institutions, anything that made an obscene profit and can afford to pay CEO's something ridiculous like $16,000 per second. That's far too much profit in my eyes. That's why Capitalism sucks - there's real high winners, yet huge losers at the other end.

It sucks that the way we are managed right now is that people at the top of the class pyramid own everything, yet they forget or know but keep it from us that we prop them up. As soon as productivity and obedience stop - that's when things go tits up for them. As soon as we revolt, they're f**ked. You think there would be a monetary gain for anyone on a day where people everywhere walked out of work and didn't buy anything or use a service? That would suck for some people!!

Anyways, nice debate! Keep it going

[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.

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

What misinterpretation? Who will pay welfare? XV century's charity?!
I don't mean to be rude, but after see a couple of your posts I came to notice you long for a world where you won't survive. You are consistently ignoring the chains that form the society, as if you see it as only what you get and what you pay. A way too short view for such a big world.

Like you said early, if a bank seize my assets it's OK for beat the banker to be refunded. The issue is that cutting welfare will be seizing the assets and/or income of the poor or wannabe poor, and at the very same time not cut it means the seizure of many people's money... So there you have "justifed violence"" from both sides. Complicated, isn't it?

[boumalo]

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.

What misinterpretation? Who will pay welfare? XV century's charity?!
I don't mean to be rude, but after see a couple of your posts I came to notice you long for a world where you won't survive. You are consistently ignoring the chains that form the society, as if you see it as only what you get and what you pay. A way too short view for such a big world.

Like you said early, if a bank seize my assets it's OK for beat the banker to be refunded. The issue is that cutting welfare will be seizing the assets and/or income of the poor or wannabe poor, and at the very same time not cut it means the seizure of many people's money... So there you have "justifed violence"" from both sides. Complicated, isn't it?

If you leave the economy free, people will have far enough money to help the few that will be on the sideline; would you help them? If you think you would, do you think you are far better than average? Probably not!

If you take 100 and give back 10 to the poor it doesn't help the poor since the 100 you take are taken partially on the poor; if poor didn't pay any taxes and were enjoying a free society they would be less poor

[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.

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

What misinterpretation? Who will pay welfare? XV century's charity?!
I don't mean to be rude, but after see a couple of your posts I came to notice you long for a world where you won't survive. You are consistently ignoring the chains that form the society, as if you see it as only what you get and what you pay. A way too short view for such a big world.

Like you said early, if a bank seize my assets it's OK for beat the banker to be refunded. The issue is that cutting welfare will be seizing the assets and/or income of the poor or wannabe poor, and at the very same time not cut it means the seizure of many people's money... So there you have "justifed violence"" from both sides. Complicated, isn't it?

If you leave the economy free, people will have far enough money to help the few that will be on the sideline; would you help them? If you think you would, do you think you are far better than average? Probably not!

If you take 100 and give back 10 to the poor it doesn't help the poor since the 100 you take are taken partially on the poor; if poor didn't pay any taxes and were enjoying a free society they would be less poor

Are you what? 15? And skip all your History classes? You are NOT dreaming or talking of a new world, that already happened, in fact that's how the world was until XX century, and poverty was a constant back then.

[boumalo]

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.

What misinterpretation? Who will pay welfare? XV century's charity?!
I don't mean to be rude, but after see a couple of your posts I came to notice you long for a world where you won't survive. You are consistently ignoring the chains that form the society, as if you see it as only what you get and what you pay. A way too short view for such a big world.

Like you said early, if a bank seize my assets it's OK for beat the banker to be refunded. The issue is that cutting welfare will be seizing the assets and/or income of the poor or wannabe poor, and at the very same time not cut it means the seizure of many people's money... So there you have "justifed violence"" from both sides. Complicated, isn't it?

If you leave the economy free, people will have far enough money to help the few that will be on the sideline; would you help them? If you think you would, do you think you are far better than average? Probably not!

If you take 100 and give back 10 to the poor it doesn't help the poor since the 100 you take are taken partially on the poor; if poor didn't pay any taxes and were enjoying a free society they would be less poor

Are you what? 15? And skip all your History classes? You are NOT dreaming or talking of a new world, that already happened, in fact that's how the world was until XX century, and poverty was a constant back then.

Poverty went down for 200years but the gap between rich and poor and poverty is going up as the State is growing bigger in the USA for decades; there is no substitute to creation of wealth by freely offering goods and services that people want without application of force, all the innovations come from citizens not from the State

The more money is given to the poor the more they stay poor and the rich get richer, that is the trend we are seeing for decades in the US; the more the State the big the best it is for the biggest corporations such as big wall street banks because they get the regulation they want and are protected of competition

Look at how a middle class family was living in the 50s in the US and how they are living now; in the 50s a single salary was providing for the whole family of 4, they had no debts, 2cars and were owners of their home; the wealth has been created in the States thanks to low taxes and small government, it is the core essence of the USA and the constitution was created to protect that and freedom

2 exemples of bad practices of the State : in healthcare and in education the State has been intervening the most and the costs are going to the roof.

If you support big government you support Obama and Bush and you think they are doing good for the country; bet you don't support both so you don't support big government; big government means sociopaths in power who want to control others, you can't have big government with nice people in power, it is not possible because nice people don't want to control their brothers

[BCEmporium]

Yes, but USA was the ONLY place in the World where a family had two cars back in the 50's. To not mention today you have way more places to bury your money than back then.

[EnfoncerQ2]

(RBE == Communism)

This is wrong, I will fix it:

RBE != Communism

Thanks

[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.

What misinterpretation? Who will pay welfare? XV century's charity?!
I don't mean to be rude, but after see a couple of your posts I came to notice you long for a world where you won't survive. You are consistently ignoring the chains that form the society, as if you see it as only what you get and what you pay. A way too short view for such a big world.

Like you said early, if a bank seize my assets it's OK for beat the banker to be refunded. The issue is that cutting welfare will be seizing the assets and/or income of the poor or wannabe poor, and at the very same time not cut it means the seizure of many people's money... So there you have "justifed violence"" from both sides. Complicated, isn't it?

Not complicated at all. Cutting welfare is not seizing assets. It's refusing to gift fuher assets to the unemployed.

[gts476]

(RBE == Communism)

This is wrong, I will fix it:

RBE != Communism

Thanks

Community ownership of resources?
Needs of individuals centrally planned by a computer?
Resources created by community owned machines?

So community ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Sure doesn't sound like communism..............

[giantdragon]

So community ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Sure doesn't sound like communism..............

Even if RBE have some similarities with socialism, why to bark?!! Would you prefer a bullet from unemployed crowd instead of changing your insane libertarian views?

[gts476]

So community ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange. Sure doesn't sound like communism..............

Even if RBE have some similarities with socialism, why to bark?!! Would you prefer a bullet from unemployed crowd instead of changing your insane libertarian views?

RBE doesn't have similarities with socialism, RBE is socialism, without even investigating the concept of how an 'allocation of need' can be conducted in absence of a pricing mechanism RBE can be discounted as a valid solution of poverty for the exact same failings as socialism.

Would I prefer a bullet from an unemployed crowd instead of changing my views? I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean would I rather conform to the ideological irrational belief system of the socialist state indoctrinated masses and abandon truth, Socratic reasoning and the scientific method?

No.

Why to bark? Because this socialistic groupthink bullshit makes me fucking ashamed of my species.

[giantdragon]

Would I prefer a bullet from an unemployed crowd instead of changing my views? I don't understand what you mean. Do you mean would I rather conform to the ideological irrational belief system of the socialist state indoctrinated masses and abandon truth, Socratic reasoning and the scientific method?

I think you clearly understand what I have meant!
BTW, economics laws are not "law of physics" and depend from human behavior (which is not unchangeable).