Thread: Poverty, Equality, and Capitalism

Originally Posted by Reiver

No problem. I appreciate my reference to economics in an economics forum would be rather shocking to you

No more that hearing a parrot say my name - I don't expect a meaningful conversation with either of you.

Originally Posted by Not Amused

No more that hearing a parrot say my name - I don't expect a meaningful conversation with either of you.

Neither mature or witty! The "what minimum wage will be required to increase prices when we know that minimum wages do not have a significant effect on prices" had more humour to it

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

This should be obvious.

Much of the poverty in our developed countries is from taking in so much poverty from the third world.
Poor desperate people are willing to work for lower wages and put up with worse treatment. Naturally this has a downward pressure on wages, and leads to higher unemployment.

More people working leads to higher unemployment?

Originally Posted by Hoosier8

More people working leads to higher unemployment?

You do tacitly introduce an important issues: to what extent should we refer to employment rates, given unemployment rates suffer from the likes of discouraged worker effects. It gets a little dodgy though when we have to consider 'two worker' households (and whether that could impinge on child development)

Please take a moment to study the following sites:

www.thevenusproject.com

www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com

The systems advocated via the above sites are not perfect (nor do they seek to be), but - given the opportunity to develop - are certainly better than what we have now.

By the way, I would be happy to hear your thoughts about the aforementioned, and chat about them as well.

Originally Posted by Ahoog69

Please take a moment to study the following sites:

www.thevenusproject.com

www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com

The systems advocated via the above sites are not perfect (nor do they seek to be), but - given the opportunity to develop - are certainly better than what we have now.

By the way, I would be happy to hear your thoughts about the aforementioned, and chat about them as well.

Only had a quick look at the venus guff, but where the heck is the economics? The resourced based economy stuff comes across like a dream sequence from a bleedin heart spod that has watched too much Star Trek. It doesn't help that 'resource-based economics' is such a vibrant aspect of the theory of the firm

Originally Posted by Ahoog69

Please take a moment to study the following sites:

www.thevenusproject.com

www.theresourcebasedeconomy.com

The systems advocated via the above sites are not perfect (nor do they seek to be), but - given the opportunity to develop - are certainly better than what we have now.

By the way, I would be happy to hear your thoughts about the aforementioned, and chat about them as well.

Only had a quick look at the venus guff, but where the heck is the economics? The resourced based economy stuff comes across like a dream sequence from a bleedin heart spod that has watched too much Star Trek. It doesn't help that 'resource-based economics' is such a vibrant aspect of the theory of the firm

Hey everyone,

very new to the forum. i read a couple posts by reiver and i like his views on socialism wrapped around individualism. but anyways, i am by no means educated in economics. most of my knowledge is from practical experiences and trial and error.

what i am about to write is just my view on the topic of this OP. i know i will sound very amateurish and may not even have a point. most of the time, my descriptions may seem very subjective to the trained economists, but i mean no harm - just want the betterment of all of mankind and not just a few. basically this is just my little contribution and voice.

i want to first state that i personally think when everyone, under a system of integrity, contributes equally within their own means and power and has such a contribution backed up by an accountable system, it is a win win situation. now everyone may have their own perspective on what is fair in their mind and as such, this may be the very reason why we are in such a deep depression right now.

everyone's scale is different and the higher you climb, the more extreme it becomes (IE: someone who makes 400 mil, a ceo, a year will have a vastly different take of money than another manager who makes 50 mil a year - despite both being extremely wealthy to the average worker).

i remember seeing someone, who i guess was either rich, a troll, or just trying to annoy, say that $5000 on a meal was actually not enough, or 10k bottle of wine was considered cheap - and this seriously made me question our system of integrity and when is enough, enough?

beauty is in the eye of the beholder and i think as a whole in today's society, the rich have fallen out of connection with everyone else. i am not jealous of saying we should punish successful people, but out of all respect, today's wealth gap is just becoming incomprehensibly disassociated with the working class - when compared to management.

right now, macro-wise, i think our entire world's economy is quite versatile, full of potential and vivid.

however micro-wise, there is just so many loop holes that are not keeping its integrity for the every day joe. what are some of the loop holes? well for one, i personally think it is just too easy to make money out of nothing for those who have access to such a power. you have the government creating money out of nothing, except a future to leverage against (our children's future), just to save those who are already well connected in our capitalist society.

there is simply too much toxicity and corruption within our society's upper echelon that right now it is very hard to even clean house. capitalists and die hard bosses blame welfare, SSI and benefits as free rides that are crippling our nation - USA.

but from what i see, america inc is the biggest bum on welfare.

upper echelon socialism i call it.

now i just slapped myself in the face but i want what reiver describes to come to the every day joe, not socialism for those in their high, ivory towers.

i do believe neo-socialism, centralized around individualism, can happen.

the hardest part for me to question is, i suppose, individual integrity being magnified and scaled into something efficient on a massive level.

it's, i can't say always easy, easy to control small groups of things, such as the hegemonic way of thinking for the rich in that they can so easily form their own boy's club and play gods. because so few control so much and it's like some god-given right they think.

simply put, our money today is not dependable. it's value and worth is easily created and corrupt. they call it hyper-inflation but i think it's just poor management of a nation's wealth, that's being squandered by a very few short-sighted, greedy capitalists.

now i don't have a solution but this is just my thought on today's equality and capitalism.

too few hold too much and the risk of all being sacrificed for a few is just too great. this is insanity to me.

Originally Posted by Anders Hoveland

I, like many people here, believe working conditions should be better, and incomes higher.
There are many people who essentially live in poverty, and struggle to afford rent in crowded apartments.
Things need to change, so that anyone willing to put work and put serious effort into their work, should be able to live a decent life in decent housing, and be able to afford a few basic extra luxuries, such as a vacation once a year, and to eat out a few times every week.

Now I realise there will always be people less motivated, who do not want to work as much, or are more discriminating about where or how they are willing to work. These people should still be able to live a decent life, but should have to deal with more modest standard of living.

I just do not think people should have to work so hard, under poor working conditions, for so little.

We would all like to improve the standard of living, and many of us at least would like to end poverty. But what does this have to do with "equality"? Most of the progressives are trying to promote "economic equality". But this is going far beyond simply ending poverty. Why do we need "equality" to end poverty and improve the standard of living for the poor?

I think capitalism can provide a decent (though modest) standard of living for everyone, and a good standard of living for most. But only under some conditions. If there are too many poor people, it is going to drive down wages, worsen working conditions, and cause unemployment. This is the "Army of the Unemployed" described by Marx. High birth rates, or high levels of immigration, are simply incompatible with providing decent standards of living under capitalism.

There are other systems, besides pure capitalism. But these other systems have potential problems, and even dangers. I think it might be preferable if we could essentially keep the structure we already have. I am also not sure that egalitarianism is compatible with ethnic diversity.

I hope that everyone in the world can someday live without poverty, and that people can generally have a good standard of living.
(we also need to take serious steps now to prevent overpopulation in the future, overpopulation will be incredible strain on the system of capitalism, because there will not be enough jobs, or housing near the jobs, for everyone)

Compared to the time before capitalism, conditions are far higher, for the poor especially. The poor now would be considered rich hundreds of years ago.

Furthermore, what is decent? Who defines decent? Compared to what? Eat out a few times a week? Vacations once a year? All of those conditions are totally arbitrary.

The standard of living for the poor has increased most dramatically under a system of free markets with very little government intervention. The system we have is crumbling. It wont last no matter how anyone wants to keep it.

Originally Posted by Liberalis

Compared to the time before capitalism, conditions are far higher, for the poor especially. The poor now would be considered rich hundreds of years ago.

Yes, the bridges the homeless now sleep under are better constructed.

Furthermore, what is decent? Who defines decent? Compared to what? Eat out a few times a week? Vacations once a year? All of those conditions are totally arbitrary.

Not being hungry, having a roof over one's head, being able to send your children to school, getting care for medical problems, making enough from one's work to not depend on others for any of these. That might be a start for defining decency, or at least adequacy for existence. That there are millions who cannot achieve this today in the US, even with massive government intervention to provide these things, points to the abject failure of the capitalist mythology that a rising economy raises all boats.

The standard of living for the poor has increased most dramatically under a system of free markets with very little government intervention. The system we have is crumbling. It wont last no matter how anyone wants to keep it.

The standard of living for the poor did not increase until the government intervened, outlawing thuggery against employees and instituting a system of social benefits. The system is crumbling because those who have benefited the most from it feel they have no obligation to support it.