Poverty, Equality, and Capitalism

I summarised the economic analysis used to understand the empirical findings on price. That you don't understand that analysis is not interesting; that only informs me that you don't know anything about minimum wages and the labour market

 

Did I ask why minimum wage didn't increase prices? Did I ask for the analysis method used?

You don't answer questions, you just try to look educated. An idiot savant knows lots of information in their area of expertise, it takes intelligence to convert information into something useful.

Can you use all those empiracle findings, and analytical tools to tell me how many percent minimum wage can increase without increasing prices?

 

You used your usual routine, asking questions that are mere bluster. Minimum wages do not have any significant effects on prices. You've been told why. You don't understand any of it though so I appreciate why you need to foot stamp

 

Dodging the question as always - you're wasting of my time.

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

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 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.

 

This is false. In fact, the third world provides the very basis for a lack of extreme poverty within the developed world. The developed world is able to buy off its own working class by exploiting the third world for cheap labor. Dependency theory and the lack of capital accumulation in third world countries demonstrates that the existence of a developed-undeveloped dichotomy quickly becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

 

A significant portion of the homeless should be in mental health facilities, but for our respecting their rights.

A visible segment of the homeless earn a comfortable living with their cardboard signs.

Others would prefer the safety of a bridge to the dangers of lining in "the projects".

Has the sinking boat since 2008 improved the situation?

The massive government intervention is hugely ineffective. Why is that?

So, the problem with the poor is that the rich won't pay even more taxes?

What did the poor do for the 10,000 years before socialism?

What did the "rich" of 1900 do without the same comforts afforded the poor of today?

 

Did I say the world was free of poverty? No. Before free markets, there were far more impoverished people relative to those who were better off.

How hungry is hungry? How sturdy must the roof be? What about the quality of the school? Your list is, as I said it would be, completely arbitrary. But we can compare all of those items to the time before free markets. And they have all drastically improved. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that you acknowledge massive government intervention to provide these resources, point out such resources are provided poorly if at all, and then blame capitalism for it.

The system is crumbling because violence and aggression cannot solve the world's problems, no matter how much people wish it to be so.

 

We've never had free markets so that comparison can't be made.

Its easy to construct a poverty line based on public attitudes, avoiding the ad hoc decisions of the researcher.

Nope! All we know is the importance of economic development. And its typically government interventionism that delivered that development.

Government coercion has been a crucial part of enabling development. Previously I've used the article by Yu (2000) in the journal 'International Journal of Social Economics' in support:

[The government] possesses some unique features that distinguish it from the firm. Such features allows the government to regulate competition, reduce uncertainty and provide a relatively stable exchange environment. Specifically, in the area of industrial policy, the government can help private enterprises tackle uncertainty in the following ways: first, locating the focal point by initiating projects; providing assurance and guarantees to the large investment project; and facilitating the exchange of information; second, reducing excessive competition by granting exclusive rights; and third, facilitating learning and diffusion of technologies, and assisting infant industry firms to build up competence. The history of developmental success indicates that the market and the state are not opposed forms of social organisation, but interactively linked (Rodrik, 1997, p. 437). In the prospering and dynamic nations, public-private coordination tends to prevail. Dynamic private enterprises assisted by government coordination explain the successful economic performances in the post-war Japan and the Asian newly industrialising economies. It is their governments' consistent and coordinated attentiveness to the economic problems that differentiates the entrepreneurial states (Yu, 1997) from the predatory states (Boaz and Polak, 1997)

 

All one has to do is see the breakdown of traditional family and the correlation of poverty...at least in America.

It's not "Wall Street greed" and cronyism...it's single parent households raising children with little to no adult supervision or mentoring.

The circle of poverty extends for generations.

There is only one way to break the cycle...EDUCATION....

Throwing money at EDUCATION...doesn't work either. Just ask Kansas City, Missouri which spent a staggering $2 Billion on it's public school system in the mid-1980's with little to show for it in terms of raising graduation rates and standardized test scores for high schoolers.

Being a good student starts in the household, and with single parent homes the fastest growing demographic...it's doubtful the working parent can invest the time needed in mentoring the child..they essentially become wards of the state and the teacher is not only educator in the child's life, they are told to become a parent.

The idea of taking money from the wealthy and throwing it into the poverty pool as a some sort of life preserver, that will enable the poor to climb out of the poverty pool...is replete with failed lessons learned already.

It doesn't work....the traditional family works...values encouraging education work...
throwing government (other people's money) at the problem?

Not so much.

 

That won't explain the high poverty in the US compared to other developed nations.

 

The breakdown of the family, while not the sole cause... is not helping.

Children who grow up with only one of their biological parents are three times more likely to have a child out of wedlock, 2.5 times more likely to become teenage mothers, and 1.4 times more likely to be out of school and unemployed.

The United States already spends the largest portion of government expenditures on entitlements.

Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, food stamps, public education, welfare...

We're already at spending level percentages approaching that of Europe in terms of percentage of GDP...
this before the President's healthcare initiative has kicked in.

I'm perplexed by those who think spending MORE on entittlements to the poor...taxing MORE on the productive who fund the entitlements...will help?

I'm truly perplexed.

 

The US, even with an absolute measure where the line is determined by the official poverty line (such that we ignore differences in income inequality rates), has higher poverty. You'd have to show that somehow family problems were more significant in the US than in all other developed countries. I don't think you'll manage to do that.

There may be positive externalities from marriage. However, high divorce is a general phenomenon.

Its welfare state is nothing compared to European countries. Its focus is on efficiency criteria and its found to be particularly ineffective than the more generous systems experienced elsewhere.

Public health systems tend to be more efficient. I doubt you'll manage to get anywhere close to such systems though.

Countries with more generous welfare systems couple lower poverty with higher social mobility. One reason for this is that such countries tend to achieve better equalities in opportunity

 

The OP didnt say a thing about levels of education and instead spoke of their being "willing to work for lower wages". Try to resist your urge to scamper off after the first strawman that comes to your mind.

 

Given they regularly have high human capital levels, you're therefore referring to greater underpayment levels. That certainly is an issue within 'economic rent' capitalism, reinforced through inefficient discrimination