Posted on Sep 22, 2015
Is Capitalism to blame for the world's poverty?
21.1K
238
171
13
13
0
http://www.wnd.com/2015/09/the-left-has-its-pope/#8uvpvrzZXEPsq0VX.99
Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things – none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.
Any serious look at the history of human beings over the millennia shows that the species began in poverty. It is not poverty, but prosperity, that needs explaining. Poverty is automatic, but prosperity requires many things – none of which is equally distributed around the world or even within a given society.
Politics
Economics
Society
Posted 9 y ago
Responses: 44
14
14
0
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Agreed. There are plenty of resources but until we learn to share and play well with others then we'll 'always have the poor among' us...
(2)
(0)
LCpl Stephen Rose
And laziness. In America, we have every opportunity in the world to become successful. In other countries that are not as free or capitalistic as us, they don't get the same chances at success as us. This is more likely due to the greed of their leadership, but in America it is shear laziness that keeps people poor.
(2)
(0)
13
12
1
Poverty is enormously complex, so anyone trying to blame it on any single thing is a fool. The issue with Capitalism isn't that it creates poverty. It's that, unfettered, it creates wealth at the expense of others.
(13)
(1)
SSG Gerhard S.
MAJ (Join to see) - Indeed... There is little that government does, that the market can't do more efficiently, and more effectively. For instance did you know that the New York subway system was built, around 1905, and was largely funded by private concerns with some government subsidies? Unfortunately the government subsidies forbade these companies from raising their rates, and what was a profitable rate in 1911 was no longer profitable following the end of the Great War with it's associated inflation. When they petitioned to raise the rates, there was outrage from the people, and from the City of New York. This inability to raise their rates caused the corporations who owned the subways to sell them to the government to avoid bankruptcy....of course, then the government turned right around and raised the rates. Nice scam.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT Jeremiah B.
"Actually, in that case, it's the opposite of what you're saying. He's not keeping it low because he has no competition and can create a barrier though artificially high pricing. By the time anyone develops a means to compete with him, he has made enough money to tank them out of business, Then he either buys out the patents or raises it back up when the threat is past. All the while, he holds the market by the balls as it's something that the person who needs it simply can't say no to."
The problem with this line of thought and the reason it isn't feasible is there is ALWAYS A THREAT, as soon as the price goes up high enough someone will enter the market, and people have a tendency to be bitter about the high price guy. Capitalism will work out in the end. There has to be a way to keep people from entering the market historically that has meant big businesses bribing Government officials into keeping other's out. (Pan AM is a great example, until WWII they had a Government sponsored monopoly in international flights as soon as their lobbying failed and competition was allowed prices hit the floor and the airline slowly dwindled towards bankruptcy.)
"My greater point originally though was that while Capitalism is certainly a great system, it has not always been great for everyone and has actually contributed to some of the problems around the world. Iran, much of Africa and parts of South America have paid heavy prices for private industry exploiting people and corrupt governments. Some of those messes will take decades to fix..if we're lucky."
In all of those cases Government Socialism is the problem, those corporations always bribe the government officials to establish and maintain a monopoly. If capitalism were actually facilitated their rates would be lowered.
In other words "Government isn't the solution to our problem, Government is the problem" Ronald Regan
"Actually, in that case, it's the opposite of what you're saying. He's not keeping it low because he has no competition and can create a barrier though artificially high pricing. By the time anyone develops a means to compete with him, he has made enough money to tank them out of business, Then he either buys out the patents or raises it back up when the threat is past. All the while, he holds the market by the balls as it's something that the person who needs it simply can't say no to."
The problem with this line of thought and the reason it isn't feasible is there is ALWAYS A THREAT, as soon as the price goes up high enough someone will enter the market, and people have a tendency to be bitter about the high price guy. Capitalism will work out in the end. There has to be a way to keep people from entering the market historically that has meant big businesses bribing Government officials into keeping other's out. (Pan AM is a great example, until WWII they had a Government sponsored monopoly in international flights as soon as their lobbying failed and competition was allowed prices hit the floor and the airline slowly dwindled towards bankruptcy.)
"My greater point originally though was that while Capitalism is certainly a great system, it has not always been great for everyone and has actually contributed to some of the problems around the world. Iran, much of Africa and parts of South America have paid heavy prices for private industry exploiting people and corrupt governments. Some of those messes will take decades to fix..if we're lucky."
In all of those cases Government Socialism is the problem, those corporations always bribe the government officials to establish and maintain a monopoly. If capitalism were actually facilitated their rates would be lowered.
In other words "Government isn't the solution to our problem, Government is the problem" Ronald Regan
(0)
(0)
SGT Jeremiah B.
MAJ (Join to see) - You and I aren't that far apart on this one. I just think going too far one way or the other is problematic. If a boot is on your neck, it really doesn't matter whose foot is in it. Bad governance is definitely a problem, but when Shell facilitates the arrest and execution of a writer in Nigeria, we don't get to just look at the Nigerian government and say "tsk, tsk, tsk" while giving Shell a pass.
Private industry has been the cause of enormous suffering around the world. We as Americans just tend not to pay much attention because it's those people over there somewhere and aren't they better off now than they were before?
The challenge, of course, is..yeah, how do we fix it? People suck.
Private industry has been the cause of enormous suffering around the world. We as Americans just tend not to pay much attention because it's those people over there somewhere and aren't they better off now than they were before?
The challenge, of course, is..yeah, how do we fix it? People suck.
Shell agrees to pay compensation for execution of Saro-Wiwa and Ogoni protesters
Oil giant agrees settlement after accusations of collaboration in execution
(1)
(0)
Suspended Profile
In general Capitalism lifts the standard of living for those who are practicing it. The problems is most of the world's impoverished people do not live in a true capitalist state. They live in war torn countries or in countries where the government, army, or police are so corrupt that goods and services never get to where they belong. And before anyone starts piping up about the impoverished in the US remember that if you have healthcare, food, home, running water, cable TV, cell phone, transportation, etc...by world standards you are far from impoverished.
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Well said, MSgt. Even the US homeless have access to potable water, free food, government entitlements, and health car--if they choose it.
(1)
(0)
Sgt (Join to see)
I was going to respond to the original question MSgt, but there was no need. Your excellent response says it all.
(0)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Good point, when the rest of the world want to punish the rich ... REMEMBER this point. WE ARE RICH.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Socialism and communism has created far more poverty than capitalism ever could. Capitalism is what people under communism engaged in whenever they had the chance to either feed themselves better, or make some extra money, or get something they couldn't get under communism. Capitalism is what happens when people have freedom to make their own decisions.
(8)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
More people under socialism have died from starvation in the last century than in all the wars combined in history. Capitalism which means open competition of private companies is by far the best system ever used to reduce poverty, increase economic growth, and provide the smallest wage inequality.
Capitalism is the solution not the problem.
Capitalism is the solution not the problem.
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
MAJ (Join to see) - Capitalism works best when law makers pass laws that favor business and not just big business, because we have too many small and medium business that are making up for the big cats.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
??? not sure I understand why are small businesses bad???
Competition is the key the more businesses the better. I'd take seven competing small businesses any day over one large business.
Competition is the key the more businesses the better. I'd take seven competing small businesses any day over one large business.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
TSgt Frank Shirley - You miss the entire point of capitalism. Capitalism is the freedom for the meek to get a job and haggle over the price of their labor. Multiple small businesses need to compete with that labor, by having more small businesses there is less control over the meek labor raising the rates. The absolutely best thing about Capitalism is one of those meek individuals can start their own business raise the rates, hire the best individuals from the other companies and outcompete their competition. I completely agree with your statement if you take out Capitalism and put in Crony capitalism, or socialism/communism. employers have no incentive to pay higher rates. Competition is the solution not the problem.
Our big issues is neither the Republicans or Democrats support free commerce, they both want control and funding donations from their supportive big businesses.
Our big issues is neither the Republicans or Democrats support free commerce, they both want control and funding donations from their supportive big businesses.
(1)
(0)
4
4
0
Here is a good read about capitalism and why it has always outperformed Socialist countries in the last 100 years.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/12/04/7_reasons_socialism_will_make_you_poorer_than_capitalism/page/full
For those doubters that still think Socialism is a better system because of our high poverty levels in this country take a look at these facts which compare what poverty actually looks like in this country and what it looks like in Socialist countries.
Poverty in America
76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths, that has a carport and porch or patio, and the average value of which is 70 percent of the median American home.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22497.html
Poverty in Socialist States
0% have air conditioning
50% have four bodies or more per room
0% have satellite TV (cable usually doesn't exist)
0% own a car
Most have not seen a microwave
0% have dishwashers
Most have refrigerators
Most have intermittent running water or use an outhouse
Most have a minimum wage of $2 or less a day.
http://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2012/12/04/7_reasons_socialism_will_make_you_poorer_than_capitalism/page/full
For those doubters that still think Socialism is a better system because of our high poverty levels in this country take a look at these facts which compare what poverty actually looks like in this country and what it looks like in Socialist countries.
Poverty in America
76 percent have air conditioning.
66 percent have more than two rooms of living space per person.
97 percent own at least one color television.
62 percent have either cable or satellite television.
Almost 75 percent of households own a car (30 percent own two or more).
73 percent own microwave ovens.
More than 50 percent have stereos.
33 percent have automatic dishwashers.
99 percent have refrigerators.
Virtually none lack running water or flushing toilets.
46 percent own their own home, the average of which is a three bedroom house with 1.5 baths, that has a carport and porch or patio, and the average value of which is 70 percent of the median American home.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article22497.html
Poverty in Socialist States
0% have air conditioning
50% have four bodies or more per room
0% have satellite TV (cable usually doesn't exist)
0% own a car
Most have not seen a microwave
0% have dishwashers
Most have refrigerators
Most have intermittent running water or use an outhouse
Most have a minimum wage of $2 or less a day.
7 Reasons Socialism Will Make You Poorer Than Capitalism
Given what we know in 2012, saying that capitalism will make a society richer than socialism should be about as controversial as saying the earth is round, not flat.
(4)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see) The Scandinavian economies have a higher market freedom index than the US. They have social programs that precariously endanger their economies, but their markets are very capitalistic in nature. (the people run their businesses not follow a federal regulation). A blanket statement that facts are wrong in an article without supporting evidence or rational argument does not fit the criteria of "I point out the flaws" Countries are kept poorer due to Socialism, the reason South American never industrialized is due to Socialism and the corruption and restriction on initiative it leads to. Socialism works very well unit you run out of other people's money. In the short term it has some good benefits, in the long run it's effects are undeniably negative.
Socialism as defined by Government controlling private business ventures has a horrible past record.
Socialism as defined by Government controlling private business ventures has a horrible past record.
(0)
(0)
SGT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) -
I was initially going after your first post where you supported a ludicrous statement like "Poverty in Socialist States" where for example 0% has a car - and this is of course a lie. An absolute lie.
I then suggest that socialist Sweden where probably 95% of those who live in poverty has a car, but you didn't want to hear these facts.. when it was easier to call Sweden or Norway "not socialist"... because they are not 3rd world country.
If you are gonna post something, support it with facts.
Also Scandinavia also have much less people per capita that lives in poverty. Must be that pesky Socialism that prevent them from living in poverty with all the cars and microwaves.
I was initially going after your first post where you supported a ludicrous statement like "Poverty in Socialist States" where for example 0% has a car - and this is of course a lie. An absolute lie.
I then suggest that socialist Sweden where probably 95% of those who live in poverty has a car, but you didn't want to hear these facts.. when it was easier to call Sweden or Norway "not socialist"... because they are not 3rd world country.
If you are gonna post something, support it with facts.
Also Scandinavia also have much less people per capita that lives in poverty. Must be that pesky Socialism that prevent them from living in poverty with all the cars and microwaves.
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SGT (Join to see)
I love when people don't support their facts and tell me to support mine.
Here is a few reasons why poverty doesn't mean what you think it means. The world's objective definition of poverty is % of families making less than half the mean household income. Obviously that would be lower in Socialist countries, however that doesn't translate across countries. The poverty level isn't the same thing as relative household purchasing power, which is a much better tool for actually explaining level of wealth of the individuals in poverty. Here's a forbes article articulating the difference between poverty levels in Sweden and the U.S. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/10/america-has-less-poverty-than-sweden/
Here is another explaining some pro's and cons with Nordic economies note "not only do the Nordic nations top the charts in health and happiness they are also some of the most economically competitive countries in the world." As this is a topic discussing economics of Socialism pointing to a country that uses a more right wing economic model follows Capitalism closer than the US is not the same thing as a Socialist economic model.
Here is the difference a Socialist economy has the Government in control of businesses they regulate day to day operations, in a capitalist there is minimal governement control the economy uses competition as the controlling factor. Here is another source http://www.borgenmagazine.com/nordic-welfare-model-less-poverty-scandinavia/.
An economic model based on competition doesn't meet the economic definition of Socialism.
Note everyone realizes the Brain dump of talented individuals leaving the country for tax haven countries.
I love when people don't support their facts and tell me to support mine.
Here is a few reasons why poverty doesn't mean what you think it means. The world's objective definition of poverty is % of families making less than half the mean household income. Obviously that would be lower in Socialist countries, however that doesn't translate across countries. The poverty level isn't the same thing as relative household purchasing power, which is a much better tool for actually explaining level of wealth of the individuals in poverty. Here's a forbes article articulating the difference between poverty levels in Sweden and the U.S. http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/09/10/america-has-less-poverty-than-sweden/
Here is another explaining some pro's and cons with Nordic economies note "not only do the Nordic nations top the charts in health and happiness they are also some of the most economically competitive countries in the world." As this is a topic discussing economics of Socialism pointing to a country that uses a more right wing economic model follows Capitalism closer than the US is not the same thing as a Socialist economic model.
Here is the difference a Socialist economy has the Government in control of businesses they regulate day to day operations, in a capitalist there is minimal governement control the economy uses competition as the controlling factor. Here is another source http://www.borgenmagazine.com/nordic-welfare-model-less-poverty-scandinavia/.
An economic model based on competition doesn't meet the economic definition of Socialism.
Note everyone realizes the Brain dump of talented individuals leaving the country for tax haven countries.
America Has Less Poverty Than Sweden
This might seem very surprising indeed but it could be said that the United States actually has less poverty than Sweden. I know this isn't the story you're used to hearing but bear with me. Given that elections are looming it must be time for the Economic Policy Institute to release [...]
(0)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
Just in case you still wanted to find out about the car ownership issues and further evidence that poverty in the US is not the same as poverty in Sweden.
Sweden poverty car ownership rates 12.5%
US poor car ownership rates 75%
Obviously, there is a difference between "census poor" and Swedish poverty definitions and there are substantially different levels for requiring a vehicle in this country.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
http://www.vti.se/en/publications/empirical-analyses-of-car-ownershiop-and-car-use-in-sweden/
Sweden poverty car ownership rates 12.5%
US poor car ownership rates 75%
Obviously, there is a difference between "census poor" and Swedish poverty definitions and there are substantially different levels for requiring a vehicle in this country.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2011/09/understanding-poverty-in-the-united-states-surprising-facts-about-americas-poor
http://www.vti.se/en/publications/empirical-analyses-of-car-ownershiop-and-car-use-in-sweden/
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
Absolutely not. --Unregulated-- capitalism is to blame for the world's poverty? (sorta tongue in cheek).
(4)
(0)
Capt Walter Miller
self-delete.
United States antitrust law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
United States antitrust law is a collection of federal and state government laws, which regulates the conduct and organization of business corporations, generally to promote fair competition for the benefit of consumers. The main statutes are the Sherman Act 1890, the Clayton Act 1914 and the Federal Trade Commission Act 1914. These Acts, first, restrict the formation of cartels and prohibit other collusive practices regarded as being in...
(2)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
MAJ (Join to see) - What we have is regulated capitalism that favors big business case in point Shell, and the NFL.
(0)
(0)
CPT Pedro Meza
MAJ (Join to see) - It is human nature to be selfish therefore law makers will favor big money. It human nature to be lazy therefore votes will not vote. We have the solution but humans are lazy.
(0)
(0)
4
4
0
SSgt Christopher Brose
Right. Capitalism, and the freedom America allows people to engage in it, is one of the main reasons people scramble to get here from countries that suppress it. That, plus religious freedom, plus the freedom to not be starved or killed or tortured.
(2)
(0)
4
4
0
We have a Pope that actually Preaches "Social Justice" that has always been a cornerstone of the Catholic Faith. The only change I see is this one will not let the US College of Cardinals rest on their Laurels of Fighting against Abortion and makes them just as responsible for the other Tenants of the Faith.
(4)
(0)
1LT Aaron Barr
Unfortunately, social justice is little more than a smokescreen for collective statism. There is no justice in stealing from a man who works to give to a man who doesn't.
(1)
(0)
PO3 (Join to see)
Catholic's social justice mean different! it mean in a personal way! not through collective mean. but... who care what is really mean...
(0)
(0)
3
3
0
No, Capitalism is on the raise and poverty is going down. Capitalism is the answer to all the worlds wows including war and terrorism.
The global poverty rate had been cut in half in 20 years.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578643-world-has-astonishing-chance-take-billion-people-out-extreme-poverty-2030-not
The global poverty rate had been cut in half in 20 years.
http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21578643-world-has-astonishing-chance-take-billion-people-out-extreme-poverty-2030-not
IN SEPTEMBER 2000 the heads of 147 governments pledged that they would halve the proportion of people on the Earth living in the direst poverty by 2015, using the...
(3)
(0)
CPO Andy Carrillo, MS
Thanks for the link. It is interesting that communist China accounted for most of the reduction in poverty rates due to "growth" (euphemism for adopting capitalist approaches to growing its economy?).
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
No poverty is caused by numerous conditions in society & don't recall Capitalism on the list. I've been poor & lived in poverty during the Depression in the 30s. My Dad had a garden in our back yard & had chickens so at least he could put food on the table while he worked as a Day Laborer in Boston when he could find work. Sadly this Depression was so wide spread that some urban areas never fully recovered.. The recent Depressions have also had the same effect in our urban areas so what goes around comes around.. Depressions cause poverty but does Capitalism cause Depressions?? I am not smart enough to answer but would hazard a guess and say NO
(3)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
Capt Walter Miller - Opportunities are out there Capt you just have to take advantage of them.. The GI Bill really helped us Old Farts & many of my generation went into the military after high school so we could get the GI Bill... It paid only $110.00 per month back then but was a big help. Veterans were also given points when they took the government tests for the Post Office, Police & Fire Depts which angered a lot of Non Veterans but I could care less about them
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
CPT L S - Sorry my bad I should have said I could care less about Non Vets who filed complaints because they were very upset that Vets were given points on civil service and other government tests . And at that time there were a lot of folks who were anti-military that we had to put up with And for the most part I did ..
Btw did you change your moniker from CPT Servicemember to CPT L S and change your photo?? Is this a new you Sir??
Btw did you change your moniker from CPT Servicemember to CPT L S and change your photo?? Is this a new you Sir??
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
I set up beginner's Fitness Programs at 24Hr Fitness in 1994, & left there after a year to train Body Builders at Gold's Gym & had them do 30 minutes of Cardio before bench presses, squats, & curls to to the max. I left Gold's Gym in 2008 & setuo my Home Gym.. I just got a Pro Form Exercise Bike....I've been training with Kettlebells a lot lately as well as riding my bike for an hour. I still run a lot & do a lot of hiking on weekends now that the fall season is here...My thing about PT is increase your Cardio...it has more benefits than weight training.. But the most important thing for PT is a sensible diet...lots of fruit & veggies with fish instead of meat & decrease dairy products.. I was one of very few Trainers who got Body Builders at Gold's Gym in Mountain View CA to run 3 miles every day before they began weight training. At first they thought I was nuts & a few refused to run or use a treadmill... young MuscleHeads think treadmill , elliptical , & stairmasters are for women & not for them.. If you consider yourself as advanced fitness then try to go for the max with all your reps.. Start with heaviest weights & then reduce the weights for each set.... give it a try if you haven't done this before..
No charge for my Training advise...but you get what you pay for...
No charge for my Training advise...but you get what you pay for...
(0)
(0)
Sgt Tom Cunnally
CPT L S - In the Marine Corps I tried to work with those who had a weight problem or failed to keep up with the CO PT..run 3 miles in less than 20 minutes, & do 100 setups, 100 pushups, & 10 pullups...And stretch exercises with weapon. I also started a weight training program at Camp Geiger with the help of Navy Corpsman who had been a body builder. This program for "Fat Marines"was pretty good so I received a Letter of Commendation from then Capt Al Gray who later became Commandant of Marines Many who I trained went to the Nam & appreciated my busting their buns at Camp Geiger when I was a Fitness NCO..
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google