Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[Forty Two]

Exactly.

It's inconceivable that he can't understand why we are all so infuriated with him. We've all been trying to argue for nuance, and he's been consistently trotting out a false dichotomy.

Do not generalise.

I for one am not infuriated, but mildly amused at his attempts.

I've not trotted out a dichotomy.

Yes you have. And a ridiculously lopsided one at that. You've stated that the only two options are capitalism and socialism. You've made absolutely no acknowledgement that we run a system which is a mix of capitalistic and socialistic approaches.

I've never said that the only two options are capitalism and socialism. That's something you've imagined in your puny brain.

Note, I'm not the one that suggests that regulation means "not capitalism," or that social welfare for the needy is "not capitalism." That's the folks who have been "infuriated" by me who are doing that.

Social welfare is the antithesis of capitalism. Not even you could equivocate it to be otherwise.

Here is the lack of nuance right there. It's yours pErvin. Capitalist systems can and do have social programs. It's not the social welfare programs that have lifted 80% of the world from poverty, though. Social welfare programs provide stop-gap help for people in need - a relatively small percentage. Those with disabilities, people down on their luck temporarily, or permanent losers like yourself who are just too lazy to do anything with themselves (that last group, including you, is a very small, tiny, tiny fraction of society - most of the rest of the population isn't like that).

Hermit said nobody was disagreeing with me.

Virtually everyone is disagreeing with you in regards to a lot of what you attribute to "capitalism".

So, then Hermit is wrong, and virtually everyone is disagreeing with me that capitalism is the best solution to poverty, because, well, that's what I attributed to it. So, Hermit must be just way off base, and his suggestion that nobody was disagreeing with what I attributed to capitalism (it's poverty fighting aspects) is almost 100% wrong - since "virtually everyone" is disagreeing with me on that. That's what I thought initially, until Hermit said I was short of preaching to the choir, lol.

[pErvinalia]

It is his way he uses data that really annoys me. It is obvious his data is cherry picked. For instance the cost of living. He uses the average of the whole of US. Cost of living is based on cities and areas.

https://www.expatistan.com/cost-of-living/index

New York is 6th on the planet. San Francisco 7th. Washington DC is 9th. There are a further 10 major cities above Amsterdam. Yet he maintains the US has a lower cost of living than the Netherlands. He does this with all his data. Like poverty. He claims there is no poverty in America by comparing incomes with the third world.

He obviously has never heard about this place:

50 Years Into the War on Poverty, Hardship Hits Back

You compared cost of living, actually. And, why would you compare New York City with The Netherlands? If you want to compare US cities to Dutch cities, then compare Columbus Ohio or Charlotte, North Carolina to Amsterdam and Rotterdam. You wouldn't really compare the richest cities in the US, and with New York a population of 9 million people and compare to Amsterdam or Rotterdam, with populations of like 800,000. And you accuse me of making bad comparisons? Jesus Christ, Dutchy...

Of course I've heard of West Virginia. And, I'll reiterate that I was very clear that there is poverty in the US, as there is in every other country, including the Netherlands. West Virginia is one of the areas, you'll remember, that Donald Trump named as areas which have been neglected for far too long, and their industries have fallen down because of government policies over the past 40 years.

I never said there was no poverty in the US by comparing "incomes" in the US to third world countries.

Stop bullshitting. You wrote: "But, the reality is that the poor in the US are not experiencing poverty like the "rest of the world." If your family income is $10,000 a year, you are wealthier than 84 percent of the world. If it's $50,000 or more a year, you make more than 99 percent of the world. The average American is a 1%-er in the world. "

And quoted this from an article: "The U.S. still fares very well on that score. On a global scale, the vast majority of Americans are either upper-middle income or high income. And many Americans who are classified as “poor” by the U.S. government would be middle income globally, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis."

And then, most damningly, this: "Thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all: the entire country is at least middle class or better. We seem to have fought and won that War on Poverty."

That's comparing standard of living, dipshit. I did NOT argue that because the US has a median income of $59,000 a year that there is less poverty than in Europe where the median is like $37,000 per year, or in Bangladesh where they earn like $2 a day. I've been quite clear on this -- the dollar figures on incomes is not the complete picture. What's important is how people live. So, in a country where there is low income but everyone lives great, there would be very little actual poverty, but in a high income country where that money buys you nothing and people live destitute there would be a lot of poverty.

You're such a dick, man. And, you're just out to score points, not to understand. That's obvious. You want to say "Forty Two is misrepresenting ---as much as you can" because you're engaged in your admitted practice of trolling and badgering to try to push me off the forum. Your goal is to make sure your imagined "we" is poisoned against me.

God, you are the biggest fucking cry baby I've ever come across. Utterly incapable of owning your own words. YOU posted an article which said that there were no poor in the US by global standards and that the war on poverty had been won in the US.

And your first stat makes no mention of PPP, so I'm not sure how you conclude that it is living standards and not US$ income.

The "most damning" phrase you quoted "thus we can say that by global standards there are no poor people in the US at all, the entire country is at least middle class or better" is not a comparison of "INCOMES" dumbass. It's a comparison of LIVING STANDARDS. You aren't getting it. There ARE NOT POOR IN THE THE US [or Western Europe, Canada, Oz] compared to "the rest of the world" - that's the point I'm making. Australians, like Americans, don't know what poverty is - not by experience. If you've ever been to, say, a South American country, you'll know exactly what I mean -- THEY have poverty. Venezuela has poverty. Bolivia. Ecuador. Brazil. Uruguay, Paraguay. They have poverty.

Ok, but that still doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to state that the war on poverty has been won. Just because there are poorer people in the third world doesn't mean that there aren't significant numbers of poor people in the US (and other western countries).

You've been on a rhetorical mission to try and paint this as a radical US vs the World exercise, when in reality it's a US vs the rest of the OECD exercise. What would be most illuminating would be to see the PPP comparison between OECD countries. As far as I can work out, that data doesn't exist. At the moment we are left to use the inequality based measures to compare our nations, in which the US performs worse than all but two nations:

https://data.oecd.org/inequality/poverty-rate.htm

[pErvinalia]

You can't move forward with someone like that. We've all spent the last 34 pages trying to introduce some nuance to the debate, and he's flat out ignored it all.

Actually, you've ignored the nuance.

it's impossible to move forward, with someone like YOU, because you refuse to simply discuss issues - you make everything personal. It's your admitted modus operandi - remember - you like to drive people off forums, you like to troll them, and get a rise and get them suspended or banned. That's what you want to do, if people disagree with you.

I've seen you do it even to members of your imagined "we" -- someone generally agrees with you, fine. Step out of line, though, and your vitriol will be aimed at them. You can't discuss. You attack. You can't argue. You insult. It's your personality. You're just that kind of person.

You seem to be forgetting that JimC, Seabass, Psychoserenity, Hermit, and Brian have likewise tried to bring nuance to the debate, and you've failed to address most of what they've said. Are you going to accuse them of being trolls too, just because we don't accept your ridiculous black and white characterisations?

[pErvinalia]

Exactly.

It's inconceivable that he can't understand why we are all so infuriated with him. We've all been trying to argue for nuance, and he's been consistently trotting out a false dichotomy.

Do not generalise.

I for one am not infuriated, but mildly amused at his attempts.

I've not trotted out a dichotomy.

Yes you have. And a ridiculously lopsided one at that. You've stated that the only two options are capitalism and socialism. You've made absolutely no acknowledgement that we run a system which is a mix of capitalistic and socialistic approaches.

I've never said that the only two options are capitalism and socialism. That's something you've imagined in your puny brain.

Then why have you singularly refused to acknowledge the 10's of posts that have talked about "mixed economies" and how it is a strawman to characterise this as capitalism vs socialism? Oh, and capitalism and socialism are THE ONLY TWO systems you've mentioned. If you think there are other options, then please fill us in. We'd all love to hear it, now that you have started digging a hole for yourself.

Note, I'm not the one that suggests that regulation means "not capitalism," or that social welfare for the needy is "not capitalism." That's the folks who have been "infuriated" by me who are doing that.

Social welfare is the antithesis of capitalism. Not even you could equivocate it to be otherwise.

Here is the lack of nuance right there. It's yours pErvin. Capitalist systems can and do have social programs. It's not the social welfare programs that have lifted 80% of the world from poverty, though. Social welfare programs provide stop-gap help for people in need - a relatively small percentage. Those with disabilities, people down on their luck temporarily, or permanent losers like yourself who are just too lazy to do anything with themselves (that last group, including you, is a very small, tiny, tiny fraction of society - most of the rest of the population isn't like that).

Nice rhetoric. Yet nothing you said refutes the fact that social welfare isn't capitalistic. Give me your definition of what capitalism is (cognisant of the fact that you previously given it numerous times), and lets see how well taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor fits in with that definition.

And further, more misrepresentation from you. No one said that social welfare programs are solely responsible for lifting 80% of the world from poverty. It's part of the nuance that you fail to accept. There are a number of factors that have contributed to the lifting of people out of poverty (they've been mentioned by numerous people in this thread; who I suppose are all just trolling you ). You've yet to acknowledge one of those factors.

Hermit said nobody was disagreeing with me.

Virtually everyone is disagreeing with you in regards to a lot of what you attribute to "capitalism".

So, then Hermit is wrong, and virtually everyone is disagreeing with me that capitalism is the best solution to poverty, because, well, that's what I attributed to it. So, Hermit must be just way off base, and his suggestion that nobody was disagreeing with what I attributed to capitalism (it's poverty fighting aspects) is almost 100% wrong - since "virtually everyone" is disagreeing with me on that. That's what I thought initially, until Hermit said I was short of preaching to the choir, lol.

Should I draw it in crayon for you?? The fact that you attribute a whole heap of stuff to capitalism that isn't capitalism, doesn't mean that capitalism isn't the best economic system to alleviate poverty. This is just yet another case of you unable to think in anything other than simplistic black or white terms.

[Forty Two]

What you're "forgetting" is that none of them have gone off and insulted me. I have just fine conversations with JimC, SeaBass, Pshychoserenity, Hermit and Brian. They disagree with me, sure, although sometimes some of them have agreed with me, too. I've never gotten in any major fights with them.

I've not "failed to address most of what they've said." I've failed to agree with some of what they've said, but you tend to mix up an unwillingness to agree with a position you hold with "addressing" something.

I've specifically responded to most of what those folks have said. I actually like responding to them, because they generally know how to discuss moreso than just attack or post snotty comments.

I've not opposed any entry of "nuance" into the mix. What I'm saying is that I've not presented the "dichotomy" you've tried to accuse me of, and I've not had a lack of nuance. It's YOU that has a lack of nuance, because you think that capitalism must mean a lawless, anarchist, completely government regulation and spending free society. You say that all social welfare programs are the antithesis of capitalism - ANTITHESIS. Your word. The direct opposite of capitalism. No nuanced definition of capitalism for you at all. Next you'll be saying that something isn't capitalism because of police forces and public libraries. That's the level of discourse you dwell in.

[pErvinalia]

This is utter bullshit. You really are a piece of work. You haven't addressed shit about historical colonialism, economic colonialism, scientific advancement, political stability, false prosperity built on debt, economic mixes of capitalism and socialism, and all the other points that people raised. You did ridiculously address 'social welfare' by claiming it for capitalism.

And you have absolutely presented a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. IT'S THE ONLY TWO REASONS YOU'VE GIVEN for the difference in poverty and wealth disparity between the west and the developing world. It's a literal dichotomy, and the only question is whether it's false or not. It IS categorically false, as we've all tried to explain to you for 35 pages. There's myriad reasons for poverty eradication, and trying to claim it as all the work of capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy and fucking brain dead to boot.

[pErvinalia]

It's YOU that has a lack of nuance, because you think that capitalism must mean a lawless, anarchist, completely government regulation and spending free society.

Stop lying, ffs. I've never said anything of the sort.

You say that all social welfare programs are the antithesis of capitalism - ANTITHESIS. Your word. The direct opposite of capitalism. No nuanced definition of capitalism for you at all.

Stop being a chicken shit and give me a definition of capitalism that squares the circle of taking money from rich people and redistributing it to poor people.

[pErvinalia]

We owe it all to capitalism, huh?

All? I don't speak in absolutes. However, what economic system helped more? Or what economic system would help more?

Nevermind all the advances in science, engineering, and computing that have made us more efficient producers of wealth.

In an economic environment allowing individuals to act in their own interest and make moves outside of a planned economy. Does capitalism or socialism better allow something to develop like, say, Henry Ford's revolutionizing of the assembly line system? Would a command economy do it better? What?

Nevermind that teenagers learn Newtonian physics and calculus along with centuries of accumulated knowledge in public schools, that they can later take into the workforce.

Capitalism is not opposed to public schools. Public schools is not anticapitalist.

Nevermind all the various welfare and social programs that prevent people from falling through the cracks so that they can remain productive members of society.

Capitalism exists alongside welfare and social programs. Such programs for the needy are enabled and funded by a viable free market capitalist system. That's why when you have capitalist countries with social welfare programs the people do so much better than socialist countries. Socialism does not allow the productivity that capitalism does, and therefore the resources are not there to support the social programs. That's why the eastern bloc countries had to embrace capitalism to improve their lot.

Nevermind social progress and concepts like gender and racial equality that allow for more people to be happy and productive members of society.

Captialism does not oppose gender and racial equality, except in the minds of social justice warriors who think that capitalism is part of something called "whiteness."

Nevermind things like contraception and abortion that enable women to go to work instead of stay barefoot and pregnant at home.

Nothing to do with capitalism or socialism. Free market capitalism does not require contraception and abortion to be illegal. In fact, it's the liberal, capitalist first world countries that first liberalized contraception and abortion, not other countries with other economic systems.

And you have the gall to try and suggest that you haven't been peddling a false dichotomy. NO ONE, other than you, has proposed socialism as the alternative to capitalism. It's been your strawman entirely.

[Forty Two]

Then why have you singularly refused to acknowledge the 10's of posts that have talked about "mixed economies" and how it is a strawman to characterise this as capitalism vs socialism? Oh, and capitalism and socialism are THE ONLY TWO systems you've mentioned. If you think there are other options, then please fill us in. We'd all love to hear it, now that you have started digging a hole for yourself.

What are you on about? If you think socialism is a better solution to poverty, make your argument. Nobody is stopping you. I don't have to make all the possible arguments here. I presented a thesis and I'm discussing it. You always do this - you act like by not making your argument for you, someone is being dishonest.

It's not for me to mention other systems. But, I mentioned command economies in general. There are fascist economic systems, often referred to corporatism, marrying government and corporations to control the economy. If someone would like to propose another economic system that is better at solving poverty - like, if someone is going to say that socialism does the poverty solving, and it's capitalism that doesn't, then that's up to them. I'm not going to sit here and list all the options. If you feel an option is relevant, then discuss it.

Stop pretending you're part of a "we" here - you're like someone's retarded cousin that everyone make sure to include in the group. It's very nice of them to do that for you, but if you think it's because they think you're like, super-smart or something, think again.

Note, I'm not the one that suggests that regulation means "not capitalism," or that social welfare for the needy is "not capitalism." That's the folks who have been "infuriated" by me who are doing that.

Social welfare is the antithesis of capitalism. Not even you could equivocate it to be otherwise.

Here is the lack of nuance right there. It's yours pErvin. Capitalist systems can and do have social programs. It's not the social welfare programs that have lifted 80% of the world from poverty, though. Social welfare programs provide stop-gap help for people in need - a relatively small percentage. Those with disabilities, people down on their luck temporarily, or permanent losers like yourself who are just too lazy to do anything with themselves (that last group, including you, is a very small, tiny, tiny fraction of society - most of the rest of the population isn't like that).

Nice rhetoric. Yet nothing you said refutes the fact that social welfare isn't capitalistic. Give me your definition of what capitalism is (cognisant of the fact that you previously given it numerous times), and lets see how well taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor fits in with that definition.

Capitalism is an economic system based on private property rights wherein the means of production is predominantly held privately and the economy is generally run on private businesses operating to make a profit. Capitalism does not envision an absence of government or the absence of laws, and as such, the government will tax individuals and businesses in order to fund government operations. Some of those government operations can involve provision of aid to poor people. That's nothing to do with ownership of the means of production.

FA Hayek of the Von Mises institute - one of the premier market capitalists of the 20th century -- was one of the originators of the Minimum Basic Income concept. That's a fairly substantial "welfare" concept, isn't it? Yet, as a libertarian, free market capitalist, he advanced that idea as part of a free market capitalist societies.

Now, if you're missing the nuance here, think a little harder.

And further, more misrepresentation from you. No one said that social welfare programs are solely responsible for lifting 80% of the world from poverty.

Shove your misrpresentation allegations up your ass, and stop inventing what people people say -- read the words they write.

It's part of the nuance that you fail to accept. There are a number of factors that have contributed to the lifting of people out of poverty (they've been mentioned by numerous people in this thread; who I suppose are all just trolling you ). You've yet to acknowledge one of those factors.

So, set forth your argument, dipshit. It's not for me to do it. Just blurting and bleating about how "a number of factors contributed" doesn't say anything. State the factors! What's the economic system you're talking about? How is it structured? How has it/they/the factors contributed to solving poverty?

I've yet to acknowledge the factors? What the fuck? You've yet to set them out in any coherent manner, or to explain why YOU think these factors are the best solution(s) to poverty, and how they relate to each other, etc. I'm not going to make your argument for you.

And, don't go on with your nonsense about me not responding to other people. I've responded to other people. You make your argument, and I'll respond to you - if I feel like it. In the meantime, go fuck yourself.

Hermit said nobody was disagreeing with me.

Virtually everyone is disagreeing with you in regards to a lot of what you attribute to "capitalism".

So, then Hermit is wrong, and virtually everyone is disagreeing with me that capitalism is the best solution to poverty, because, well, that's what I attributed to it. So, Hermit must be just way off base, and his suggestion that nobody was disagreeing with what I attributed to capitalism (it's poverty fighting aspects) is almost 100% wrong - since "virtually everyone" is disagreeing with me on that. That's what I thought initially, until Hermit said I was short of preaching to the choir, lol.

Should I draw it in crayon for you?? The fact that you attribute a whole heap of stuff to capitalism that isn't capitalism, doesn't mean that capitalism isn't the best economic system to alleviate poverty. This is just yet another case of you unable to think in anything other than simplistic black or white terms.

So, it is the best economic system to alleviate poverty? Do we agree on that? Or, are you being evasive here. You say my misattribution of stuff to capitalism that isn't capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism isn't the best economic system to alleviate poverty. Well, is it the best system for alleviating poverty, or not? Regardless of me misattributing stuff to capitalism...

Further, I have not attributed stuff to capitalism that isn't capitalism. All I've said is that things like social welfare programs are not not anticapitalist and are common in capitalist societies. Having them does not mean that capitalism doesn't exist there, or that capitalism is not the best solution to poverty. In my view, capitalism has been the best solution to poverty, and where capitalism has not solved poverty - in the case of the very needy -- social programs help provide a boost at that level. That's not "attributing social programs to capitalism," it's just saying that they are not antithetical to capitalism. That's probably too much nuance for you, though.

[Forty Two]

This is utter bullshit. You really are a piece of work. You haven't addressed shit about historical colonialism, economic colonialism, scientific advancement, political stability, false prosperity built on debt, economic mixes of capitalism and socialism, and all the other points that people raised. You did ridiculously address 'social welfare' by claiming it for capitalism.

When you mention - merely mention - something like colonialism, you're not presenting an argument. Present your argument for how colonialism results in capitalism not being the best solution for poverty. Then I'll respond to it. You don't get to just blurt out points and expect me to then respond in detail. I provide enough detail to support my own arguments, I'm not going to imagine what your arguments are. You might have a good solid point. Only, you always stop short of presenting it. You think you get to just whip out one-liners, and then you've done all your "explaining" and it's now everybody else's turn to "address
what you've "mentioned." Make a coherent argument and I'll respond it it. If you're just going to note a blurb, then that's nothing I feel the need to rebut. I don't rebut "mentions" - I rebut arguments.

And you have absolutely presented a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. IT'S THE ONLY TWO REASONS YOU'VE GIVEN for the difference in poverty and wealth disparity between the west and the developing world. It's a literal dichotomy, and the only question is whether it's false or not. It IS categorically false, as we've all tried to explain to you for 35 pages. There's myriad reasons for poverty eradication, and trying to claim it as all the work of capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy and fucking brain dead to boot.

I haven not presented any dichotomy, false or otherwise. That's you inventing things again.

However, capitalism's growth production really helps the poor. That's why most of the 1% live in capitalist countries. As the Occupy Wall Streeters used to say, if you make over $34,000 a year, you're in the 1%. That's the median income in Europe, and $15,000 below the US median income. We are the 1%. Thanks to capitalism.

What's more reasonable? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or "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." As such, capitalism does, in fact, make more sense than socialism, because utilizes interests to meet needs. The proprietor of a store has an interest in making a customer happy because that customer can go somewhere else. Put all stores under a government run system, and you get something more like the DMV - you can't go anywhere else. They don't care about your specific need or problem, and if you're unhappy with the product or customer service, you've nowhere else to go.

Capitalism incentivizes success, and when you provide incentives for something, you get more of it.

Central planning of an economy is, by all accounts, a worse method of allocating resources than a free market. Under capitalism, the market reacts almost like a living thing and allocates resources where people want to spend their money.

[pErvinalia]

Then why have you singularly refused to acknowledge the 10's of posts that have talked about "mixed economies" and how it is a strawman to characterise this as capitalism vs socialism? Oh, and capitalism and socialism are THE ONLY TWO systems you've mentioned. If you think there are other options, then please fill us in. We'd all love to hear it, now that you have started digging a hole for yourself.

What are you on about? If you think socialism is a better solution to poverty, make your argument. Nobody is stopping you.

Dude, YOU are the only one talking about socialism as an alternative solution. You are dealing in false dichotomies. "What am I on about"? MIXED ECONOMIES.

I don't have to make all the possible arguments here. I presented a thesis and I'm discussing it. You always do this - you act like by not making your argument for you, someone is being dishonest.

You are being dishonest when you claim that you aren't dealing in a false dichotomy. You demonstrably are.

Stop pretending you're part of a "we" here - you're like someone's retarded cousin that everyone make sure to include in the group. It's very nice of them to do that for you, but if you think it's because they think you're like, super-smart or something, think again.

Dude, all of us have made the same arguments repeatedly to you. There is a "we", and you aren't part of it.

Note, I'm not the one that suggests that regulation means "not capitalism," or that social welfare for the needy is "not capitalism." That's the folks who have been "infuriated" by me who are doing that.

Social welfare is the antithesis of capitalism. Not even you could equivocate it to be otherwise.

Here is the lack of nuance right there. It's yours pErvin. Capitalist systems can and do have social programs. It's not the social welfare programs that have lifted 80% of the world from poverty, though. Social welfare programs provide stop-gap help for people in need - a relatively small percentage. Those with disabilities, people down on their luck temporarily, or permanent losers like yourself who are just too lazy to do anything with themselves (that last group, including you, is a very small, tiny, tiny fraction of society - most of the rest of the population isn't like that).

Nice rhetoric. Yet nothing you said refutes the fact that social welfare isn't capitalistic. Give me your definition of what capitalism is (cognisant of the fact that you previously given it numerous times), and lets see how well taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor fits in with that definition.

Capitalism is an economic system based on private property rights wherein the means of production is predominantly held privately and the economy is generally run on private businesses operating to make a profit. Capitalism does not envision an absence of government or the absence of laws,

Stop erecting this strawman! No one says that it does.

and as such, the government will tax individuals and businesses in order to fund government operations.

Some of those government operations can involve provision of aid to poor people. That's nothing to do with ownership of the means of production.

Capitalism is more than simply who owns the means of production. It's about strong property rights and voluntary trade/contracts. The role of government in a liberal economy isn't to provide socialised entities, it's to provide things that pragmatically (unless one is an anarcho-capitalist) can't be provided by individuals, but are necessary for the protection of private property rights and contract enforcement - i.e. police, military, courts etc. ALL, rich and poor, benefit the same from these services. Socialised health, education, welfare and housing aren't liberal capital entities. They are the antithesis of capitalism. They are taking profits from the rich and redistributing them to the less rich, in such a way that the less rich get an unequal (i.e. greater) share of the benefit of these services.

FA Hayek of the Von Mises institute - one of the premier market capitalists of the 20th century -- was one of the originators of the Minimum Basic Income concept. That's a fairly substantial "welfare" concept, isn't it? Yet, as a libertarian, free market capitalist, he advanced that idea as part of a free market capitalist societies.

Well I think he saw it as a lesser evil (redistributing that money via taxation) than the greater evil of the government services that need to exist in absence of that redistribution. He was being pragmatic, to a degree, so I guess that should be commended. But that's not a "welfare state". Hayek's MBI would do away with large chunks of the welfare state.

And further, more misrepresentation from you. No one said that social welfare programs are solely responsible for lifting 80% of the world from poverty.

Shove your misrpresentation allegations up your ass, and stop inventing what people people say -- read the words they write.

So if you claim it's not misrepresentation, then why did you raise it if no one has said it? What was your purpose for making it seem as if someone was saying that social welfare was responsible for lifting blah blah??

It's part of the nuance that you fail to accept. There are a number of factors that have contributed to the lifting of people out of poverty (they've been mentioned by numerous people in this thread; who I suppose are all just trolling you ). You've yet to acknowledge one of those factors.

So, set forth your argument, dipshit.

My argument, dipshit, as well as everyone else's, has been set forth MULTIPLE TIMES!

And, don't go on with your nonsense about me not responding to other people. I've responded to other people. You make your argument, and I'll respond to you - if I feel like it. In the meantime, go fuck yourself.

Jesus Christ, have a cry you big baby. I'm definitely sending you adult colouring-in pens for Christmas.

Hermit said nobody was disagreeing with me.

Virtually everyone is disagreeing with you in regards to a lot of what you attribute to "capitalism".

So, then Hermit is wrong, and virtually everyone is disagreeing with me that capitalism is the best solution to poverty, because, well, that's what I attributed to it. So, Hermit must be just way off base, and his suggestion that nobody was disagreeing with what I attributed to capitalism (it's poverty fighting aspects) is almost 100% wrong - since "virtually everyone" is disagreeing with me on that. That's what I thought initially, until Hermit said I was short of preaching to the choir, lol.

Should I draw it in crayon for you?? The fact that you attribute a whole heap of stuff to capitalism that isn't capitalism, doesn't mean that capitalism isn't the best economic system to alleviate poverty. This is just yet another case of you unable to think in anything other than simplistic black or white terms.

So, it is the best economic system to alleviate poverty? Do we agree on that? Or, are you being evasive here.

No, I'm clearly and unequivocally pointing out where you are speaking utter bullshit. As usual, you simply can not own your own words. You somehow think you get to have free pass on the shit you say, by later claiming that it's not on the topic as you see it. Fuck that. You say dumb shit, you get called on it. Deal with it, Princess.

You say my misattribution of stuff to capitalism that isn't capitalism doesn't mean that capitalism isn't the best economic system to alleviate poverty. Well, is it the best system for alleviating poverty, or not? Regardless of me misattributing stuff to capitalism...

It's hard to say, given the extent of the other factors (both non-economic and/or socialist). My personal feeling is that the economic system (whatever it may be) is the smallest part of the reasons why poverty is being eradicated. But when you look at the best performing countries in the West, where things like stable government, rule of law, liberal democratic principles, scientific advancement etc are all pretty much similar between our countries, you find that where there is less socialistic influence (i.e. a smaller welfare state, less government regulation, lower taxation), there is worse relative poverty and social dislocation. So it seems to me that once the other non-economic factors contribute to our success, then a less lassez-faire approach leads to a more stable and just society.

Further, I have not attributed stuff to capitalism that isn't capitalism.

Yes you have. You specifically claimed that capitalism allows the welfare state, and that socialised education isn't anti-capitalist. That's farcical.

All I've said is that things like social welfare programs are not not anticapitalist and are common in capitalist societies. Having them does not mean that capitalism doesn't exist there,

No one has said that a welfare state does not mean that capitalism exists there. Stop erecting strawmen!

or that capitalism is not the best solution to poverty. In my view, capitalism has been the best solution to poverty, and where capitalism has not solved poverty - in the case of the very needy -- social programs help provide a boost at that level. That's not "attributing social programs to capitalism," it's just saying that they are not antithetical to capitalism. That's probably too much nuance for you, though.

You still haven't addressed the major points - colonialism, prosperity built on debt, and other stuff that JimC, Hermit and Seabass have raised. You got Seabass's post all wrong, as you were stuck in your black and white capitalism vs socialism thinking. He wasn't suggesting that stuff that isn't capitalism is necessarily socialism. And of course, you didn't address this when it was pointed out to you.

[PsychoSerenity]

I haven not presented any dichotomy, false or otherwise.

What's more reasonable? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or "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."

Central planning of an economy is, by all accounts, a worse method of allocating resources than a free market.

Try really hard, Forty Two.

[pErvinalia]

And you have absolutely presented a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. IT'S THE ONLY TWO REASONS YOU'VE GIVEN for the difference in poverty and wealth disparity between the west and the developing world. It's a literal dichotomy, and the only question is whether it's false or not. It IS categorically false, as we've all tried to explain to you for 35 pages. There's myriad reasons for poverty eradication, and trying to claim it as all the work of capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy and fucking brain dead to boot.

I haven not presented any dichotomy, false or otherwise. That's you inventing things again.

Stop fucking lying, ffs. - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#p1742490

I mean, ffs, you do it in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH! No one, BUT YOU, is suggesting that socialism is an alternative to capitalism in eradicating poverty. What fucking drugs are you on that you can claim you aren't presenting a dichotomy, and then in the very next paragraph present the very dichotomy that you claim you aren't presenting??

What's more reasonable? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or "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." As such, capitalism does, in fact, make more sense than socialism,

[pErvinalia]

I haven not presented any dichotomy, false or otherwise.

What's more reasonable? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or "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."

Central planning of an economy is, by all accounts, a worse method of allocating resources than a free market.

Try really hard, Forty Two.

It's fucking unbelievable, isn't it?!

[Forty Two]

I haven not presented any dichotomy, false or otherwise.

What's more reasonable? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or "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."

Central planning of an economy is, by all accounts, a worse method of allocating resources than a free market.

Try really hard, Forty Two.

I see what you're suggesting - that I just went ahead and presented a dichotomy. However, follow the thread. What I did was respond to pErvin's post. I noted that I did not present the dichotomy he is suggesting. Then I said HOWEVER -- and I did compare socialism to capitalism, which is what he brought up.

Note, that's not a "dichotomy." That's a comparison. I compared the two things he mentioned. If one asks, which team is better, Manchester United or Manchester City, that's not a dichotomy or a false dichotomy. It's a comparison of two things. That's the same with comparing capitalism or socialism.

As to "false" dichotomy, that's where someone presents two things as the only opinions. I've not done that at all. Not once, ever, no matter how much pErvin wants to say that I did.