Because we're relying on slave labor for our manufacturing, as we discussed earlier.
The problem with this idea is that the market will always price some jobs cheaply, thereby forcing someone to be poor (even if we all had MIT quality educations and were highly motivated, someone has to take out the trash). While your statement works fairly well when talking to individuals, it does not work when you look at the system as a whole.
Well yes exactly.
The assessment of everyone being educated is right.
If capitalism only produced jobs and it did not lower the cost of living, keeping people in poverty might be true.
For the notion that "capitalism creates poverty" to be true, you're going to have to show that prior to or in absence of capitalism, these people would not be impoverished.
:shrug: every system creates poverty from the lack of a system (olden times) to every thing we have tried. Capitalism creates less poverty, but it still creates some. The inversion does not have to be shown for the premise to be true.
But it does, for something to create another thing, you have to show that in absence of that something, that the creation would not exist.
If a person in Bangladesh did not have that job earning $20 a month, what would they be doing to provide for them self?
If it is superior, why are they not doing it now?
The even stronger correlation is the level of mathematical literacy. The majority of graduate study revolves around higher mathematics.
The creation is the fact that certain jobs will never pay well. Didn't I just go over this?
If you read my previous posts, I already stated that capitalism is the best system we have come up with so far.
Not paying well, isn't the equivalent of poverty though.
I don't think I get paid well but I'm surely not impoverished.
I understand that but I think that "capitalism creates poverty" is an invalid statement.
Which is not capitalism.
Look, I understand that supply and demand is the cardinal rule. If you wanted to think like one of those libertarian fundamentalists, you might even think it's the only rule. Certainly you'll hear many right-wingers talking as if "capitalism" is just a convenient shorthand for the interests of big business. But in a broader historical view, there's a lot more to it than that. A capitalistic society is, first, a society. That means everyone plays by the same rules. In a capitalist society, those rules form a coherent policy that encourages economic activism, not stagnation. A corporation, in a so-called free market, that makes its money exploiting workers on a completely uneven field doesn't qualify as any kind of society, much less a capitalist one...no matter what Karl Marx or Dick Cheney may tell you.
My guess is you are using an absolute definition of poverty. And it is true that the poor in this country generally do better than the poor in most of the world. However, there is a very real and destructive psychological aspect to poverty solely relies on a more "how one is doing compared to the rest of their society" view.
My guess is you are looking at the first one and I am looking at the second one.
I am looking at it from the perspective that not everyone is going to be prosperous no matter how well suited they are for it. This is inherent in all economic systems.
There is an absolute threshold of poverty though.
Adequate food, water, shelter and positive human contact are things that make a person not impoverished.
In the U.S. practically no one is poor.
That is largely true but it's not because of the economic system, it's largely the behavior of the people in that system.
Our poor are richer than most of the world's rich.
You are correct if we are only talking about physical needs. People are much more complex creatures than this though, which is why I find this statement inadequate to address the effect of poverty.
Economics is based on human behavior so those two statements are one in the same.
We can never look at an economic system without considering the warts left by human imperfection. That was the problem with communism.
People need positive human interactions, love and belonging.
Those are needed non physical things.
I included that.
Yes and no, capitalism is a system of private ownership.
Everyone has the opportunity to privately own potential profit generators, yet some people choose not to participate.
lol.. I just thought about something.. these guys are prolly the most hard core free market people out there. No taxes.. regulation.. government.
What's wrong with what they are doing?
Do they need a Sears or Walmart to fit your desire of good?
People also need esteem, self confidence, and hope. In many cases poverty robs a person of those things. This negative feedback is part of the trap of poverty.
In many cases, yes, that is correct. But in conjunction with those three needs I mentioned in this post. I cannot fault people for losing sight of what they are capable of. I have been in poverty and I know how it can kill a soul very quickly (this is a large reason of why I remain a liberal despite my own personal prosperity)
I just thought it was funny is all.. this is pure unrestrained capitalism. There is nothing wrong with what they are doing nessesarily. I just thought it was funny how free market wackos think capitalism makes everyone rich.
It makes everyone less poor.
No one said it makes everyone rich.
Capitalism does not force people into poverty. It does not cause poverty. The absence of an economic system results in practically all people being in poverty. The various economic systems raise people out of poverty. So the question is how many people are in poverty and how can you minimize it?
Feudalism left most people in poverty and only nobles and merchants rose out of poverty.
Mercantilism did better.
Communism and socialism tries to spread wealth to all members of society, by dictating equality of outcome, and since there was little growth and innovation, practically all people are in poverty.
Capitalism raises all people. Our people in poverty have TVs, cars, food, apartments. They do this on minimum wage. Our poor are orders of magnitude richer than the poor in third world countries. The fact that there is a growing gap between rich and poor, means that the rich grow more than the poor, but the poor still grow. As noted above, systems which try for equality of outcome are detrimental to society as a whole. If you don't like being poor, get an education and get out of your condition by working hard.
It makes everyone less poor.
No one said it makes everyone rich.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?