Capitalism can not eradicate poverty

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,455
9,590
113
Washington DC
How was THAT moderate man?
You're right. My statement

"I disagree. There are downsides for consumers as well. For example, if a store whose inventory overlaps that of WalMart goes out of business because of the competition, its customers lose both the availability of items they can get at WalMart and items they cannot get at WalMart.

Of course, this is true of all businesses and simply part of the market, but to deny it happens is a sign of willful blindness."

Is the kind of firebrand revolutionary crazy talk that gets folk killed. Or at least threatened by a mod.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
By God, you're right! Your single-product anecdote proves absolutely that WalMart is an unadulterated, pure, 100% benefit to all consumers, with no downside for anybody, ever!

Go tell Mommy how clever you are, you bright boy, you.

I repeat...

How was that moderate man?
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,455
9,590
113
Washington DC
Awwww. . . Walter! A greenie? Really?



I repeat...

How was that moderate man?

Do you really need this explained? OK.

I disagreed with petros's comment that WalMart always benefits consumers, and gave a generic example of how a WalMart coming to town can reduce consumer choice. This was against a backdrop of previous moderate statements about the effects of WalMart on communities. Petros came back with some crap about padlocks, as if that's somehow relevant. So I heaped a little well-earned scorn on him.

I'm sorry. Did I trigger you? Hurt your feelings? Traumatize you? Will you need counselling, or will a hug do it?

(That was sarcastical.)
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,866
14,425
113
Low Earth Orbit
You're right. My statement

"I disagree. There are downsides for consumers as well. For example, if a store whose inventory overlaps that of WalMart goes out of business because of the competition, its customers lose both the availability of items they can get at WalMart and items they cannot get at WalMart.

Of course, this is true of all businesses and simply part of the market, but to deny it happens is a sign of willful blindness."

Is the kind of firebrand revolutionary crazy talk that gets folk killed. Or at least threatened by a mod.

Walmart doesn't kill mom and pop, consumers do. How many years do consumers need to be gouged before Walmart frees them from mom and pops monopoly?
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
Walmart started as a small business.
That doesn't change who they are now, does it?

Walmart doesn't kill mom and pop, consumers do. How many years do consumers need to be gouged before Walmart frees them from mom and pops monopoly?
No it's Walmart. Small businesses aren't able to afford to compete with their prices, and Walmart's consumers are predominantly poorer people who have little choice.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,866
14,425
113
Low Earth Orbit
Big deal. If Walmart can save an entire small city from decades of mom and pop gouging the entire city now has extra jingle in their pockets to spend at venues and shops Walmart doesn't compete against.
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
Little benefit to consumers (some money saving) doesn't come close to offsetting all of Walmart's negatives.
 

gore0bsessed

Time Out
Oct 23, 2011
2,414
0
36
wow, really? that's a long list.

it'll be easier just to post the wiki page of criticisms, it could take hrs to list them all.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
there are many points in the article.

- david woodward, an economist, comes to the conclusion after thorough research that under our current economic system eradicating poverty is an impossibility.

- pretending it's possible to maintain the fastest growth rate sustained by the poorest 10% in our history (between 1993 - 2008 their incomes increased 1.29% each year) it would take 100 years to bring the world's poorest above the 1.25/day poverty line. even still the poorest 1% would not be out of poverty.

- howerver, thinking people have determined a more realistic $5/day as a more survivable income than 1.25/day.
so if we take that number it would take 207 years to eliminate poverty.

- right now the only strategy we have to reduce poverty is increasing the global GDP. unfortunately the poorest 60% have only received 5% of the income generated by global GDP increases, while the richest 40% have received the remaining 95% !!

- eradicating poverty would then require a global GDP growth of more than 175 times what it is currently. which means extracting, producing and consuming 175 times more commodities than we currently do. that requires an average global per capita of $1.3 million all so the poorest can earn $5/day.

- eradicating poverty is possible, it just requires the abolition most things if not everything capitalism is structured on.

Making us all equally poor is not the answer we are looking for.