Capitalism Offers the Best Answers for Poverty

from JoeUser Forums

As many of you know, I used to be a hard core socialist. I was the socialist of all socialists. I was involved with radical communist organizations in the city of Chicago, and I read Marx and Che Guevara (as well as biographies of both). But as time went by I began to see just how wrong I was.

See, to this day, I care deeply about the plight of the poor. If my study of socialism taught me anything, though, it taught me that the answer to poverty does not lie in socialist revolutions, it does not lie in toppling the working class. The fact is, no economic system on the planet is perfect. But of all the imperfect systems, capitalism offers better answers than most other solutions.

See, the Soviet Union taught us the painful lessons of what is wrong with socialism. People DID suffer in the Soviet Union. People DID starve. And freedom of speech was stifled to an extent that our bourgeoise eurodweebs will never understand. The KGB didn't give out "F's" on research papers. They didn't deny entrance to universities. They shipped their dissidents off to one of the most forbidding areas of the planet. Was that a necessary byproduct of socialism? I believe it was; dissension in a socialist society has a tendency to destroy what work product the state is able to produce.

The truth is, people suffer in a capitalist society. And admittedly sometimes they suffer more than they should. But a smaller percentage suffers, and to a lesser extent than in socialist nations.

Our own history shows the strides our nation has made against poverty. In the past, I've compared and contrasted the life of the working class in urban America in 1900 to that of most Americans today. Back then, everyone in the household worked. Including children. Education was a privilege poor children could not afford, unless they could learn in the scant hours of daylight after their long shifts at the factories had ended. Families took in borders. And still their standard of living did not rise to that of all but the poorest of America's poor.

The reasons why capitalism is a better system are multitude. First and most obvious is that capitalism offers hope for the future. In a socialist system, it is unlikely that I could be anything but a manual laborer. My father was a manual laborer, and his father before him. While I might have had the fortune of escaping that rat race, it's pretty unlikely.

Second, capitalism increases productivity. If I am paid for my work product, my work product increases. That doesn't matter if I am a farmer or a salesman. If producing more means I get paid more, I am going to produce to increase my pay

Third, capitalism spawns innovation. If I am paid more for higher productivity, I will discover ways to increase my productivity. If I'm a farmer, I'll look to increase crop yields. If I am an investment banker I'll look for ways to increase my investments.

A greater amount of goods on the market means a lower cost per item. It is a simple matter of supply and demand. This means that the poorest do not need to work as hard to purchase items necessary for survival. And because they are paid for their work product, they can get better jobs or better positions in their current jobs to go even further.

Lastly, more money for the rich means more disposable income. More disposable income (usually) means more giving. How many libraries in this country were funded in part by Andrew Carnegie? How many schools in this nation have computers bearing the names of Bill and Melinda Gates? How many doors have been opened because of the wealth of capitalists poured out into the community?

And it doesn't end in our country. When the tsunami hit India, look at the amount of PRIVATE donations that poured in. Look to Africa, where Oprah Winfrey's school is opening new doors for some young African women. Look at UNICEF, look at the Red Cross, look at the countless organizations funded by the dollars of Americans with dispensary income.

Capitalism is far from perfect. But in the absence of perfection, it is the best we have to offer. And I am proud to call myself a capitalist. And one day, when I have the money to distribute, a lot of poor will be glad I did!

6,886 views 30 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good article. Problem with the hard core socialists is that they will agree with all your goals but say that the State must force those goals on everyone at the point of a gun if thats what it takes.
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only problem with capitalism is that it requires so many poor people to suffer horribly before it pays off. Look at any country which has embraced capitalism and you'll see a period of transition where large proportions of the population starve or are worked to death. It happened in the UK, in Europe, and in the US.

I think capitalism must be tempered to be of any benefit. If you look at the figures it was only after the introduction of basic welfare provisions in the late 19th century that capitalism began to benefit more than just a small proportion of the population. It's that little flattening effect that makes the relentless drive upwards worthwhile.
TouchTasks - Access tasks with ease on Windows touchscreens.
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

The only problem with capitalism is that it requires so many poor people to suffer horribly before it pays off. Look at any country which has embraced capitalism and you'll see a period of transition where large proportions of the population starve or are worked to death. It happened in the UK, in Europe, and in the US.

It is said in a perfect world, Capitalism is the worst form of society, and you are right.  But God did not create a perfect world, but an imperfect one.  So in reality, it is the best.  Is there short periods of suffering?  Yes.  But with every other form of society tried to date, the suffering is not short term, but chronic.

You can rail against the couple starting out that cant afford to pay for a date.  Or celebrate that after a few years, they are donating excess wealth to the truly needy.  But reality will always bring you back to the fact that to lift the poor out of poverty, there has to be incentive.  It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out that the rich in Mexico are not the ones sneaking across the border, and that the ones that are sneaking, have dollar signs in their eyes as they see a way to work, and provide well for their family.  That is not a pipe dream.  That is the reality of Capitalism.

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a self-confessed 'bourgeoise [sic] eurodweeb' I tend to see the socio-economic/political systems more as a continuum with a theoretical (but never actually existing) 'pure' capitalism at one end, and a theoretical (but never actually achieved) communism at the other. They essentially represent the possible extremes on the individualism/collectivism axis. I am more interested in what lies towards the middle.

By and large I agree with you that the actual attempts to introduce socialism/communism resulted in untold misery, which was not accidental but an inevitable outcome of the marxist theories on which these attempts were based. Also, like you, I came to that conclusion after an embarrassing youthful infatuation with hard-left politics. The end result of which is that I now have a fierce distaste for extremist politics of any kind (except, of course for 'militant wishy-washiness' ).

For this reason, I believe very much in pragmatism - looking at what works in practice instead of what ought to work in theory. I take it as a given that capitalism is possibly the worst way to organise a modern economy - with the exception of everything else that has ever been tried or thought of...

But back to Eurodweebery. Today, after the fall of the Berlin wall, all the countries of Europe have market capitalist economies, sustained by democracy and the rule of law. However, one reason for a lot of the hostility that exists on the right in the US towards Europe (dating from well before certain European countries failed to give the US backing for its current foreign policy) is that Europe now offers an alternative capitalist model to the American Dream, in which free markets are tempered by state regulation (not control) and generous welfare provision. Indeed even the US system contains some elements of regulation and welfarism. For this reason, we need to think of a variety of competing capitalisms (what could be more capitalist than that?), especially when you factor in the very different models to be found in East Asia.

The great strength of capitalism is its ability to continually re-invent itself. There are huge problems with capitalist economies, but very often the solutions to those very problems are thrown up by capitalism itself. So that every time 'advanced thinkers' announce the death of capitalism, we find that these "rumors" have been "greatly exaggerated", in the words of Mark Twain.

It will be interesting to see which capitalist model is more successful in the future - that of the US or that of the EU. 'Righties' here of course will be sure of their answer, and social democrats will jump to the opposite conclusion, but I don't think that the answer is really that clear yet. For an interesting take from an American writer who thinks that Europe is the future see here. Link
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
It will be interesting to see which capitalist model is more successful in the future - that of the US or that of the EU. 'Righties' here of course will be sure of their answer, and social democrats will jump to the opposite conclusion, but I don't think that the answer is really that clear yet. For an interesting take from an American writer who thinks that Europe is the future see here. Link


I'm very concerned with the European model. While some would extol its virtues, they do so ignoring the Muslim riots in Paris, the "hate speech" laws that effectively stifle free speech in many of those countries, and many other social ills that are, at their best, an equal trade off for the problems we have in America. What works in Europe may work in Europe, but I'm not convinced it will work here...not as long as our Constitution and Bill of Rights remain in play.

In Germany, for instance, homeschooling is illegal, and at least one homeschooled child in Germany has been forcibly removed from her family and locked in a psychiatric hospital. This is not conspiracy theorist paranoia, it is well documented by the HSLDA. I have a hard time seeing the US as a nation accept such an oppressive state, especially in light of the many successes of the homeschool movement.

I believe there are things we can, and should learn from Europe. While I do not like their socialized approach to medicine, the doctors are better educated in holistic means of treatment. There are also things, however, that Europeans can learn from us. At any rate, I am extremely concerned with any movement that would surrender national sovereignty to an international government.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
"hate speech" laws that effectively stifle free speech


I love the quote I saw today. 2 men are charged with Hate speech for what? Saying Islam is a religion of hate. And the courts ruled?

The "truth" is not a defense!

Yea, lets follow that model and all stark spouting newspeak.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'm very concerned with the European model. While some would extol its virtues, they do so ignoring the Muslim riots in Paris, the "hate speech" laws that effectively stifle free speech in many of those countries, and many other social ills that are, at their best, an equal trade off for the problems we have in America. What works in Europe may work in Europe, but I'm not convinced it will work here...not as long as our Constitution and Bill of Rights remain in play.


Capitalism is an economic model though, not a political one. European capitalism doesn't have to come with heavy-handed social control. Look at Australia - our economy is much closer to the European model than the American yet homeschooling is perfectly legal and we have hardly any hate-speech laws (it's only illegal to publically abuse the police to their faces so far as I'm aware).
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
As a devout capitalist myself, life has also taught me that all freedom is dependent on a unequal balance of personal freedom, community standards and government. Personal Freedom should always have the lion's share, and be the goal. The problem is, if either of the three lords too much power over the others, personal freedom suffers.

It all comes down to what is most important, personal freedom or "equality". Since equality is never equal and fairness is never fair, no government or community standard will ever attain it. So their only realistic purpose is to exist to maintain personal freedom. Socialism as a government economic system can't respect personal freedom, so it shouldn't even be considered.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
Capitalism is an economic model though, not a political one. European capitalism doesn't have to come with heavy-handed social control. Look at Australia - our economy is much closer to the European model than the American yet homeschooling is perfectly legal and we have hardly any hate-speech laws (it's only illegal to publically abuse the police to their faces so far as I'm aware).


It is VERY rare for a country to follow the economic policies of another nation and adopt their heavy handed social control. Already we have US politicians discussing ratifying the "UN Convention on the rights of the child", which, if passed, would render parents pretty much powerless as far as discipline, religious instruction, or oversight of their children are concerned.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
As far as the European model, I'd say that in 2003, 14,000+ of the people of France could have lived without it.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
It is VERY rare for a country to follow the economic policies of another nation and adopt their heavy handed social control.


Did you miss a 'not' there? As I said before I think it's quite common for economics to be dissociated from politics. Most of Southeast Asia built themselves up on the Singapore model, but they all have quite different social policies - none that I'm aware of, for example, have the same policy on public filth and cleanliness.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Already we have US politicians discussing ratifying the "UN Convention on the rights of the child", which, if passed, would render parents pretty much powerless as far as discipline, religious instruction, or oversight of their children are concerned.


It has little to no effect really. It's been ratified in Australia since 1990 and I don't think it's done much more than bring an end to corporal punishment in schools.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
Did you miss a 'not' there?


Yeah, I missed a "not". My toe is killing me...gimme a break! (LOL!)

Seriously, though, I believe the American standard works better than most people in other countries realize. Our "poor" live pretty well.

I'd be interested, though, in doing a comprehensive study on the issue. It would be interesting to see how our poor stack up across the board with the poor in Australia and Europe.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
It has little to no effect really. It's been ratified in Australia since 1990 and I don't think it's done much more than bring an end to corporal punishment in schools.


Because the UN currently has no teeth. If we give them teeth to enforce their manifestos, it could be devastating!
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

Off topic... the mixed quoting system is killing me... makes reading some replies a real pain in the ass.

 

I agree with cacto that basic welfare is a responsibility of a moral society. The emphasis is massive on the Basic though.

Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with cacto that basic welfare is a responsibility of a moral society.


Of a society, yes. Where we disagree is in government being its caretaker.

I have long contended that if welfare were privately funded and administered, oversight would be easier and fraud would be less widespread. As it is we are giving out massive welfare to illegals (technically only to their US born children, but we ARE giving welfare to illegals nonetheless. The last reliable estimates I read put the number somewhere over $1 billion a year), and many families are opting to remain on welfare rather than seek gainful employment for as long as they can, then remain in low paying jobs so their other benefits aren't cut.

Our government, though, keeps piling program upon program, and the truth is, the industrious welfare bums can live pretty close to a middle class existence on the taxpayer's dime.

As a Libertarian, I would rather see "social programs" among the last of government programs to be fully de-funded. But I believe that we should systematically and methodically scale them back, replacing them with other programs, until only a "safety net" program remains to take care of needs resulting from truly unforeseen circumstances.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
I'd be interested, though, in doing a comprehensive study on the issue. It would be interesting to see how our poor stack up across the board with the poor in Australia and Europe.


Most quality of life scales focus heavily on that sort of thing - I think the UN runs one which is fairly well respected. Europe and Australia tend to beat the US quite handily, largely because our societies are flatter.

In Oz we don't have the uber-rich, but we don't tend to have much uber-poor either. Cheap and fast/free and slow healthcare services, free education and guaranteed dinars from the government every fortnight mean only the really determined will starve to death or die from preventable illness (junkies and incurable street people in general tend to do this).

Australia has its aboriginals of course, so we're hardly a paradise. The amount of corruption in gov-funded aboriginal community organisations is truly astonishing. There's been practically no progress on the aboriginal front in the last 30 years, and it's probably the biggest blight on mildly socialist societies - even if funding doesn't work we don't tend to try anything else.

Of course highly capitalist societies don't really do much themselves - ie with the native americans or whatever the euphemism is - so maybe it's just a human problem.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have long contended that if welfare were privately funded and administered, oversight would be easier and fraud would be less widespread.


Yes, and I contend we had that situation in the 19th century, and it was a horrible and bleak world for much of humanity. If the German Chancellor hadn't started social security I shudder to think of the communist hells we'd all be living in after the Revolution.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have a proposal for you, cacto.

I like the way you debate and discuss, even though we see different sides. What say we look at starting a "debating club" like the writer's club. We could have a point/counterpoint format, and maybe get Brad in on it and have the discussion front paged. I think it would definitely be good for the site.

What say you? You up for it?
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
In Oz we don't have the uber-rich, but we don't tend to have much uber-poor either. Cheap and fast/free and slow healthcare services, free education and guaranteed dinars from the government every fortnight mean only the really determined will starve to death or die from preventable illness (junkies and incurable street people in general tend to do this).


See, and I contend that we don't have many uber poor in the US, either, and that most of those are junkies and incurable street people. We have walk in clinics in all major cities, and emergency rooms have to treat anyone who walks in their door. Every child in America has free K-12 education, with free lunches, and, in most schools, free breakfast. No guaranteed money from the government, but low wage jobs are available almost anywhere in the country. Compare/contrast the plight of the working poor in the US today vs. 1900 (I have done it in a previous blog), and life among our poor doesn't even begin to compare.

I know you have some experience with the US; certainly more than I have with Australia, but how much time have you spent IN the impoverished areas, getting to know the people behind the statistics? You actually have to put forth effort to starve to death in the United States; while our social programs might not be as extensive as those in Australia, we have extensive provate charities that usually work quite hard to make sure nobody goes to bed hungry. Even in my most impoverished childhood years, when my mother was fencing food stamps to feed the alcohol addiction of my abusive stepfather, we always had food on the table. It wasn't always fancy, but it was always there.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
I have a proposal for you, cacto.

I like the way you debate and discuss, even though we see different sides. What say we look at starting a "debating club" like the writer's club. We could have a point/counterpoint format, and maybe get Brad in on it and have the discussion front paged. I think it would definitely be good for the site.

What say you? You up for it?


That really depends. There's only a few issues that really interest me any more. If you do launch it, I might reply from time to time, but I don't write many articles and I don't intend to change that.

I know you have some experience with the US; certainly more than I have with Australia, but how much time have you spent IN the impoverished areas, getting to know the people behind the statistics?


I have no experience with the US, actually. I just have the knowledge any mildly educated citizen of this world has on US politics, history and policy, augmented a little by what I read on JU.

You actually have to put forth effort to starve to death in the United States; while our social programs might not be as extensive as those in Australia, we have extensive provate charities that usually work quite hard to make sure nobody goes to bed hungry.


Yes, which is odd really considering the US generally doesn't perform that well on the scales. I think it may be due to your expensive tertiary education and the general lawlessness of your inner city slums. But realistically there's not much you can do about them in a mega-city like New York, Los Angeles or San Francisco.

It's not an area I've done a lot of research on, but from what I can remember of development studies (a rapidly abandoned minor I started a few years back) these scales tend to demand more than just a fed population to bring you to the top of the scale.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yes, which is odd really considering the US generally doesn't perform that well on the scales. I think it may be due to your expensive tertiary education and the general lawlessness of your inner city slums.


I have to concede the general lawlessness of the inner city slums, but the expense of tertiary education comes with a qualifier, as it is available to most who want it.

Oddly enough, those who have the least access to our tertiary education system are the MIDDLE class. The wealthy have enough money to pay, and the poor usually qualify for government grants, scholarships, etc. But even the middle class have access to the system, it's just a little harder.

Our college system includes two year and four year colleges. The prices of colleges vary widely; in a decent junior/community college, one can pay less than $4000 a year for tuition, books and fees. Sure that's pricey, but what's it worth to you? For the very poor, a Pell Grant will pay the entire bill, and they are STILL eligible for state aid, student loans, and other forms of aid to meet their living expenses. For the very rich, it's just a drop in the bucket. Again, it's the middle class who get stiffed, but still, to a family making $50,000 a year, $4000 a year may be tight, but it's usually doable. And the student can walk away with a two year degree that can transfer to a four year school.

I'd seriously like to look at Australia's system sometime. I couldn't say without extensive evaluation whether it is better or worse. But I CAN say the American system often gets an unfair bum rap; after all, I grew up among the poorest of the poor, and I've managed to get a decent education and good employment. Not to say that anyone can, but I do believe that most can.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
I agree with cacto that basic welfare is a responsibility of a moral society. The emphasis is massive on the Basic though.


With respect, no it is not.

The basic welfare is the responsiility of the society. Moral is not a factor, until you get into religion. Or Anti-religion. (Humanism).
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Our college system includes two year and four year colleges. The prices of colleges vary widely; in a decent junior/community college, one can pay less than $4000 a year for tuition, books and fees. Sure that's pricey, but what's it worth to you? For the very poor, a Pell Grant will pay the entire bill, and they are STILL eligible for state aid, student loans, and other forms of aid to meet their living expenses. For the very rich, it's just a drop in the bucket. Again, it's the middle class who get stiffed, but still, to a family making $50,000 a year, $4000 a year may be tight, but it's usually doable. And the student can walk away with a two year degree that can transfer to a four year school.


Tuition fees at Australian unis for citizens are all paid by the government from the very beginning, and then automatically repaid later when the student's income hits certain levels. Fees are between 3-5k a semester (science and medicine cost more due to the increased equipment requirements). Textbooks are slightly subsidised (around 10%) but rarely more than 500 a year depending on course. For example in my 5.5 years of university (I did a combined degree with a year's exchange) I've spent less than a grand on textbooks.

I'd seriously like to look at Australia's system sometime. I couldn't say without extensive evaluation whether it is better or worse. But I CAN say the American system often gets an unfair bum rap; after all, I grew up among the poorest of the poor, and I've managed to get a decent education and good employment. Not to say that anyone can, but I do believe that most can.


Go for it. The states set their own curriculums and the universities are laws unto themselves (except they get federal funding). The universities are open to anyone and entrance scores are based on popularity rather than academic rigour. The best uni in the country - the Australian National University (ranked in the top 50 in the world) has the lowest entrance requirements of any 'elite' university in the country.

I'm sure all the appropriate info is on the government education websites... if you can find it. Our gov is just as good at obfuscation as anyone else's.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top

basic welfare is a responsibility of a moral society

I agree with this too.  However, is "society" the government?  Does "basic welfare" include any food the recipient chooses?  Does "basic welfare" include the "right" to an ambulance when there is no real medical emergency, but "are you kidding, taxis cost money"?

If we really wanted to be a moral, good, or even responsible society, we would do an honest evaluation of who really needs help to meet their basic needs before we decided how much each recipient should receive.  If we really want to be a moral, good, or even responsible society we would expect everyone else to do for themselves.  If we really wanted to be a moral, good, or even responsible society, we would decide if we want to donate to charities, and how much... then expect them to use the money wisely.

There is nothing moral, good or responsible about robbing a person of their right and drive to do for themselves.  Creating a need so that the government can fill it is a society of thieves and scoundrels.