Capitalism can not eradicate poverty

[MHz]

History has proven that communism did nothing to enrich the working class. In most cases it kept them poor. It does however enrich the ruling class.

Communism doesn't have shareholders who demand higher returns for themselves before it filters down to the 'poor common workers'. Put a limit on profit in the single digit percent and the 'savings' go to lower the price of the product and that means more will be sold.

Really Walter, are you suggesting wholesale prices are only for some consumers?

 

[Walter]

Communism doesn't have shareholders who demand higher returns for themselves before it filters down to the 'poor common workers'. Put a limit on profit in the single digit percent and the 'savings' go to lower the price of the product and that means more will be sold.

Put limit on how much people can make an no one will take risks.

 

[HarperCons]

Apparently you are too young to have ever heard of the USSR. Maybe you have heard of Cuba?

Cuba has done remarkably well considering the attacks and embargoes it has consistently suffered for decades by the ruling imperialist powers.

I don't care too much for Stalinist USSR, this was more of a totalitarian than a communist society. RIP Comrade Trotsky.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Put limit on how much people can make an no one will take risks.

Or at best very limited risk, commensurate with the potential reward.

I can't think of a better way to stop an economy dead in its tracks.

But hey, at least we'll all be "equal."

 

[MHz]

Nothing can eliminate poverty. Poverty is not an absolute, it is a comparative. No system of economics or government has ever produced economic equality. There have been winners and losers, and big winners and big losers, in every political entity in human history.

Really?? Why is it the big winners are the only one whose input matters as they are unlikely to come out with small winners and small losers would be a better blend when the 'whole is considered' as being important rather than the 'comfort' of just a few.
If you have never sat on 'hard ground' you can't fully appreciate what a 'comfy couch' is.

Really, really Walter. Speak or forever hold your tongue.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Really?? Why is it the big winners are the only one whose input matters as they are unlikely to come out with small winners and small losers would be a better blend when the 'whole is considered' as being important rather than the 'comfort' of just a few.
If you have never sat on 'hard ground' you can't fully appreciate what a 'comfy couch' is.

Take your pills.

 

[MHz]

Put limit on how much people can make an no one will take risks.

5,000% raise in price as soon as you own it is not risk taking. The 'shareholder' should have to work someplace in the company before they can walk off with company profits.

Take your pills.

Been there done that.

 

[HarperCons]

Nothing can eliminate poverty. Poverty is not an absolute, it is a comparative. No system of economics or government has ever produced economic equality. There have been winners and losers, and big winners and big losers, in every political entity in human history.

So, you have three choices:

1. Go with what we've got, which has a record of steady if uneven improvement in social, physical, and economic well-being for all. Use relatively small and careful experiments to alleviate the worst problems.

2. Jump over to some philosophy, usually socialism or communism, that has already proved an abject failure every place it's ever been tried, and then deny reality.

3. Come up with some wild-a*s idea of your own, and spend the rest of your life carrying around a sign and annoying people on the street.

Don't see a fourth. If you do, let me know.

NB: There are no capitalist countries. Plain fact is that all of the "capitalist" economies are mixed capitalist-socialist, more or less either way.

I strongly disagree. First a proper economic policy (non-capitalist) can absolutely eliminate poverty, we have the means to do so. You're right when you say an economic system has never eliminated poverty, but it's never be tried either. We've been under a capitalist system for hundreds of years and poverty is the remaining state people reside in - capitalists have no interest in eliminating poverty as that would go against their interests of enriching themselves.

I don't agree at all that communism/socialism has failed, anytime it's tried it is viciously stomped out by the ruling capitalists.

 

[Walter]

The 'shareholder' should have to work someplace in the company before they can walk off with company profits.

Buying shares is working in the company.

 

[MHz]

It's being a middleman, a blight for all concerned. If you want double-digit returns to be the norm then saddle 'them' with all the interest it takes to run the financial world rather than the fees being passed onto the ones who make use of the least in a year. Watch how efficiency suddenly matters in the working of a 'well-oiled machine'.

Walter, more than 4 in a row starts to look like you don't believe in free speech for anyone other than you, a person whose dog only wags his tail sometimes when they meet after being apart. It is a relief to know that isn't part of my resume.

 

[HarperCons]

Ya beat me to it taxslave... But I'll post anyways



The theory behind Communism may talk of achieving this goal, however, all it has ever done is drag everyone down to the lowest common denominator, it's not really poverty if everyone is living that standard, unless of course, you compare that standard against any system that has a hint of capitalism.

Opps almost forgot... Communism does impoverish all except Der Leader and their henchmen, they live in very fine style

Yes, the theory which anytime it's attempted, is foiled by the ruling bourgeoisie.

Here is a reality: The entire world is capitalist yet the vast majority of the people of the world are poor. Capitalism increases the standard of living for whom?

 

[Walter]

Here is a reality: The entire world is capitalist yet the vast majority of the people of the world are poor. Capitalism increases the standard of living for whom?

From a lefty rag.
Towards the end of poverty | The Economist

 

[JLM]

Well, I don't consider myself "stupid" but I'm glad you can identify if I am.


I was referring specifically to the N. A. continent i.e. Canada and the US. But Haiti would be an example of what I was referring to - dirt poor! Our poor don't have any idea of what poor is - period.


JMHO

Years ago my sister visited Thailand including some of the rural areas where poverty was running rampant. She told me that in these regions "wealth" was considered to be ownership of things like a pencil!

 

[HarperCons]

From a lefty rag.
Towards the end of poverty | The Economist

A bunch of liberal garbage. They use U.N's dubious methods as a source of how a billion people are taken out of poverty, it's literally as ridiculous as this:

U.N unilaterally decides $1.25 a day is extreme poverty, so if people are making $1.30 a day they're OUT OF POVERTY!!!!! WOW CAPITALISM!! Give me a ****ing break..

Exposing the great 'poverty reduction' lie - Al Jazeera English

 

[MHz]

Yes, the theory which anytime it's attempted, is foiled by the ruling bourgeoisie.

Here is a reality: The entire world is capitalist yet the vast majority of the people of the world are poor. Capitalism increases the standard of living for whom?

The way it works is the wealthy allow a bit of money to filter down to as few as it takes to remove the 'complaints' about the imbalance of 'quality of life' due to engineered factors rather than 'natural selection'.
In the black market it is called 'hush money', same result.

A bunch of liberal garbage. They use U.N's dubious methods as a source of how a billion people are taken out of poverty, it's literally as ridiculous as this:

U.N unilaterally decides $1.25 a day is extreme poverty, so if people are making $1.30 a day they're OUT OF POVERTY!!!!! WOW CAPITALISM!! Give me a ****ing break..

Exposing the great 'poverty reduction' lie - Al Jazeera English

How about something closer to home. We pay out of Canada some $30B/yr in interest payment to somebody to print out money when we could employ citizens in Canada to do the same for a lot less than $30B.

 

[HarperCons]

The way it works is the wealthy allow a bit of money to filter down to as few as it takes to remove the 'complaints' about the imbalance of 'quality of life' due to engineered factors rather than 'natural selection'.
In the black market it is called 'hush money', same result.


How about something closer to home. We pay out of Canada some $30B/yr in interest payment to somebody to print out money when we could employ citizens in Canada to do the same for a lot less than $30B.

Early revolutions have taught the capitalists they must concede enough to the working class to keep us complacent or else a large enough uprise will have them on the on the guillotines.

 

[MHz]

Years ago my sister visited Thailand including some of the rural areas where poverty was running rampant. She told me that in these regions "wealth" was considered to be ownership of things like a pencil!

It wouldn't damper the elite to have it that everyone gets a working e-pencil. For the rural ones it might show them the stories about the city is mostly PR rather than fact so getting there is not better than making the most of local resources and that brings in the best things from the city without the problems.

 

[captain morgan]

Cuba has done remarkably well considering the attacks and embargoes it has consistently suffered for decades by the ruling imperialist powers.

I don't care too much for Stalinist USSR, this was more of a totalitarian than a communist society. RIP Comrade Trotsky.

Maybe think asking a Cuban how well it's done... Shouldn't be too hard to speak with one, Florida has 100s of thousands of 'em that risked their lives fleeing on rafts and rickety boats to escape that wondrous paradise

Yes, the theory which anytime it's attempted, is foiled by the ruling bourgeoisie.

Here is a reality: The entire world is capitalist yet the vast majority of the people of the world are poor. Capitalism increases the standard of living for whom?

BS - it's 'foiled' because the theory is fundamentally flawed

 

[MHz]

Early revolutions have taught the capitalists they must concede enough to the working class to keep us complacent or else a large enough uprise will have them on the on the guillotines.

The Magna Carta gave the 'industrialists' the same protection that being a 'noble' did before that. That never did cover the employees or the consumers of the goods manufactured. If consumers were ever included there would be a need to 'retire the nobles and other royality' and they would have to live off the business places they owned and ran. I'm pretty sure they and the bankers are not ready to give up the 'easy money'.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DszBrRLeR8Y&list=PL14E1EA11E3DF8AD7&index=3

 

[Ludlow]

The expectations always exceed the realization of things. The ever present human factor of greed will in all cases contaminate every ideology no matter how logical it sounds. Capitalism seems to be the best shot at people having a chance to put we ahead of me. The other systems and genius philosophies simply don't work. Good words though.