I have come to the realization that socialism doesn't work- both because of its very nature and because of the corruptibility of the government. There is no guarantee of equitable wealth redistribution in a state-controlled economy and even if there were, socialism would lower the standard of living for everyone, including the poor.
On the other hand, capitalism, while effective as a mechanism, leaves out the "unproductive" entirely. It is not the inequality of wealth per se that bothers me, it is the fact that some people have no real ability to produce and so are left behind by the free market. I see no alternative to some sort of welfare, yet I recognize that government control of such welfare is self-defeating. The ideas that I have tentatively espoused since the site recovered have been largely market-based, moreover, and probably wouldn't sufficiently help the poor for that reason. I am relatively new at all of this, and while I have stayed fairly consistent on most social issues, within the last ten or eleven months I have tried everything from socialism to laissez-faire capitalism as a starting point for an economic plan, but none of the ideas traditionally espoused by either the left or the right seem to be effective in my goal of eliminating poverty.
To make matters worse, moreover, centrism is just as bad. It seems to combine the inefficiency of the welfare state with the insensitivity of hard line capitalism. This dilemma of mine affects how I think about issues from Social Security to free trade, and I need an answer that goes beyond partisan propaganda or a combination of the two forms of propaganda (left and right). Finally, if there is a way of lessening selfishness, there is a way not only of solving not only the problem of poverty but also many social problems caused by similar irresponsibility. I have not found such a solution, however, and I certainly don't think that it will come from public education or even from corruptible religious denominations, as much as I attempt to follow Christian principles. I don't know whether I'm boring you, annoying you or both, but I would rather be uncertain than be certain in a wrong conviction.

Socialist countries of scandinavia are among the least corrupt nations on earth.



Socialist countries of scandinavia have among the highest standards of living among any countries of the world.

Socialist countries of scandinavia dont have poverty.

Socialist countries of scandinavia owe much of their success to their extremely good education systems which are brilliant at mzimizing the efficiency and work potential of citizens.

.... that one wont work then.....

Dude, go buy a book about world statistics. Look at how different countries succeed. Compare them. Who is better off. America, Europe, Israel, Japan, South East Asia, Oil-states, etc. Look at their #s. This takes time man.

By the way, I have seen statistics on the comparative economic success of nations. They are utterly inconsistent. Neither the U.S. nor Sweden is failing economically, for example, yet neither is growing far more rapidly than the other.
The problem with applying Scandinavian methods here in America is twofold. American people are, almost as an instinct, more capitalistic, so the Scandinavian level of wealth redistribution wouldn't be possible without an authoritarian government. Another difference is our national debt, which has just reached $8 trillion. Government health insurance, for example, would cost $1.8 to $1.9 trillion per year, increasing our annual spending by 700 to 800 billion dollars. That being said, it is possible that our system wouldn't work in Scandinavia.

actually, scandinavian countries are just as capitalistic (finland is #1) as the USA. Scnadinavian counrties all rank at the top of competetiveness of the nation and ease in which to do business.

No fisical policy will do this, poverty has created its own culture. It is up to the attitude of ppl in general to get out of poverty, all the govt can do is provide avenues to get out of poverty. There are two problems facing American poverty. First ppl of the middle and higher class complain that it not fair that these poor ppl get all the programs and they don't, so this hampers efforts even more. The second is the the govt hasn't provide enough avenues. We should be increasing domestic spending and re-routing welfare costs to fund these programs. Also these programs have to be held accountable for there results and actions, kind of like what Bush is trying to do for schools.

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas

Look at the difference in how Scandinavian countries use socialism to bolster capitalism as compared to the US's use of socialism to get the poor conveniently out of the way. The important part is to increase the work potential of each citizen through education and skill training. From there you set up an infrastructure to aid in getting people to work and aiding families. While much of the profit will disappear into such programs, the people become more productive and there is enough left to aid those that need aid. Instead of giving fish, you must focus social programs first in teaching people to fish and getting them to the lake. Then you can lift them out of poverty while they work to grow your economy... if everything works right.

^^exactly! You can throw someone money (welfare) but if you teach them skills to get a good job then they will make more money than they could recieve through welfare

__________________
In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is the king
- Nas

First, and this is VERY improtant, Printer mentioned in one post that Scandadivian countries were socialist and then a scant few posts later called them capitalist. As a simple matter of economics you cannot be both. It's one or the other. To be accurate Scadanavian countries are capitalist welfare states. There is a large and far reaching safety net bolstered by high tax rates. They are not, however, socialist.

Second, before you can solve the poverty problem you need to define poverty.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.

I define poverty essentially as the inability to survive. I discussed economics with my father recently, and from talking to him I have developed a combination of ideas that, though not original in and of themselves, are at any rate probably an original combination. They are, however, probably so far to the right that I would alienate everyone but stekim and MerlinX if I discussed them. This is all the more unusual considering that my father leans a bit to the left (fiscally)- but he gave me some unbiased information that helped me make up my mind.

then it truly effects very few people in the states. Most "poor people" here survive just fine. They have food, clothes, shelter, cable TV, DVD players, etc.

__________________
I wasn't born with enough middle fingers.