Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Forty Two]

At present, capitalism allows the psychopathically greedy to flourish at the expense of the people who provide their resource.

Is there a system that doesn't run on greed? Where?

[Forty Two]

Exploitation of workers is the name of the game for capitalism or does 42 find that a difficult concept?

I think it's you that doesn't understand much of what you are talking about. First, of course, it's a basic tenet of the Marxist socialist that all workers are exploited, so that's why you've convinced yourself that it's "the name of the game." In capitalism, the person who owns a resource can also control what is done with it. In a socialized economy, this isn't true because there is no longer any owner. Nonetheless the problem of control remains. Who is going to decide what is to be done with what? Under socialism, there is only one way: people settle their disagreements over the control of property by superimposing one will upon another. As long as there are differences, people will settle them through political means. Socialism replaces productive skill with political skill in terms of advancement. Politicians benefit under socialism, not workers.

Playing off people against each other and making sure wages are low as possible. No permanent contracts and no job security. Why does he thinks America is so inefficient?

It's not "so inefficient," but it's inefficiencies stem from departures from the free market. The free market encourages efficiency, through competition.

Does he think it is normal for someone having to work three jobs just make ends meet?

No, it's also not normal here in the US. Most of europe is a lot poorer than most of the US. Most European countries (including Germany, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium) if they joined the US, would rank among the poorest one-third of US states on a per-capita GDP basis, and the UK, France, Japan and New Zealand would all rank among America’s very poorest states, below No. 47 West Virginia, and not too far above No. 50 Mississippi. Countries like Italy, S. Korea, Spain, Portugal and Greece would each rank below Mississippi as the poorest states in the country. And under direct measures of living standards, then data from the OECD also shows that America is considerably more prosperous.
https://fee.org/articles/most-of-europe ... ed-states/ and https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2 ... p-trouble/ None of this suggests that policy in America is ideal (it isn’t) or that European nations are failures (they still rank among the wealthiest places on the planet).

Why American kids are so unhappy?

Capitalism looks after a minority. Socialism looks after everyone.

American kids are "so unhappy?" Why do you think this? On what basis?

Socialism looks after everyone? Where? What country are you referring to here?

Given what we know in 2017, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat.

Socialism benefits the few at the expense of the many: Socialism is like an extremely expensive insurance policy that dramatically cuts into your quality of life, but insures that if worse comes to worse, you won't drop below a very minimal lifestyle. For the vast majority of people, this would be a terrible deal. On the other hand, if you're lazy, completely incompetent or alternately, just have a streak of very bad luck, the meager benefits provided by socialism may be very appealing. So a socialist society forces the many to suffer in order to make it easier for the few. It's just as Winston Churchill said, "The inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of misery."

Socialism is wasteful, slow to adapt and discourages entrepreneurship and innovation.

As Adam Smith wrote - “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” A man will work much harder to take care of himself, his family and his friends than he will to make money for the state, which will then waste most of it before redistributing it to people who aren't working as hard as the man who earned it in the first place.

[Forty Two]

The appeal of socialism is explained by a supposed emphasis on moral values and an ignorance/misunderstanding of the relationship between moral values and economic systems.

What are the results - what are the consequences - of adopting one or the other system. Don't look to intentions. Look to results.

Socialism has appealed to high minded, fine people, people of ideological views, because of the supposed objectives (equality and social justice). Those are fine objectives, an it's a tribute to people that they hold those objectives. But, we have to look at whether the system achieves those results.

Social injustices are clearly greatest where you have central control.

Greatest degree of inequality is in the socialist states of the world.

[pErvinalia]

This has already been addressed by multiple people earlier in the thread. Points which you ignored, as usual. You can get away with ignoring me, but not everyone.

[Alan B]

There is also the unpalatable fact that if the 'poor' and 'down and outs' are provided for by voluntary contributions, the government of the day will 'pretend' they don't exist, even though their existence may be the result of government policy.

Oh, yes, the government will express fine words of 'concern' but in the end will do nothing.

This is typified in the UK by the increase of people begging and sleeping rough openly in the streets of Birmingham over the last few years - coincidentally, Tory years - when before it was almost unheard of.

There were a few beggars around years ago 'entertaining' us passers by, but they were few and far between. Now it's a common sight on almost every street corner in the town centre.

[Strontium Dog]

Non-sequitur. I said nothing about redistribution.

So what is your point, then?

If you don't want people to draw the obvious conclusions from your statements, perhaps you ought to be a bit clearer.

[Strontium Dog]

The problem is not with people like Gates but the societies that allowed them to exist.

The idea that people are "allowed" to exist by society will send chills down the spine of anyone who believes in liberty.

[Forty Two]

So what is your point, then?

Ooo! Ooo! Ooo!

To post something that apparently says X to invite a response discussing X, and then derail the conversation into an argument about whether X was actually said -- all the while never actually clarifying with specificity what was meant, if not X - such that hopefully pages of the thread can be made to devolve into arguing over the personal qualities of other posters.

If you don't want people to draw the obvious conclusions from your statements, perhaps you ought to be a bit clearer.

That would mean actually discussing the issues posed with a view toward making ideas clear, and attempting to understand the ideas presented by others. I.e. one would want to discuss the topic rather derail it into personal attacks, direct and/or indirect.

Remember, clarity is not required because it's all been explained to you before, and it's your inability to read or understand English or fathom basic logic that prevents you from seeing it.

[pErvinalia]

Non-sequitur. I said nothing about redistribution.

So what is your point, then?

If you don't want people to draw the obvious conclusions from your statements, perhaps you ought to be a bit clearer.

Perhaps you need to reread the thread? The thread has been a promo for the wonders of capitalism. The less regulated the better. I was pointing out how it's a fucking sick system, and people who can't see that are likely sociopaths.

[Forty Two]

The problem is not with people like Gates but the societies that allowed them to exist.

The idea that people are "allowed" to exist by society will send chills down the spine of anyone who believes in liberty.

Not when one's definition of liberty involves subservience to the State.

[Forty Two]

See Strontium - if you don't understand, you can't read - go reread the thread, and that should change your mind, because, apparently, you haven't read it, or if you have, your reading comprehension is not very good. If it was, you'd agree with what was "explained to you."

Also, if you don't hold a particular view, you're likely a person manifesting extreme antisocial attitudes and a lack of a conscience (a "sociopath"). Now you can feel free to argue back and forth about whose reading comprehension is deficient and whose moral judgment is clouded, whether by mental illness or otherwise. But, that's not trolling or a personal attack.

It's all been explained to you before, dontcha know...

[pErvinalia]

Jesus, talk about misrepresentation. Don't you liberals have any shame? He doesn't mean how is Gates allowed to exist as in 'live'. He means how can the situation of extreme wealth inequality be allowed to exist.

[pErvinalia]

See Strontium - if you don't understand, you can't read - go reread the thread, and that should change your mind, because, apparently, you haven't read it, or if you have, your reading comprehension is not very good. If it was, you'd agree with what was "explained to you."

Only you and your penchant for historical revisionism could attempt to argue that this isn't a thread promoting the virtues of capitalism.

[Sean Hayden]

Jesus, talk about misrepresentation. Don't you liberals have any shame? He doesn't mean how is Gates allowed to exist as in 'live'. He means how can the situation of extreme wealth inequality be allowed to exist.

What's the difference darling?

[pErvinalia]

Really? One is about killing someone, and the other is about progressive taxation. Surely you can see the difference.