"The poor need capitalism"

[the iron horse]

You have a farm and internet, not exactly what I consider poor.

I live on a small farm.

The internet?

I'm posting this reply on dial-up.

I guess I'm $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[BVS]

I live on a small farm.

The internet?

I'm posting this reply on dial-up.

I guess I'm $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

And then there are those that own no land whatsoever, barely have a roof over their head and can't even afford dial-up let alone a computer. Surely you are bright enough to see these differences.

 

[the iron horse]

And then there are those that own no land whatsoever, barely have a roof over their head and can't even afford dial-up let alone a computer. Surely you are bright enough to see these differences.

Can you say that again?

I'm trying to understand.

 

[BVS]

Can you say that again?

I'm trying to understand.

I have no idea how to make this any clearer.

Yes, you and I may be poor compared to Donald Trump, but in the overall scheme of things we are rich compared to others.

Your very first comment in this thread that started this whole "conversation" was full of fallacies.

 

[the iron horse]

How does that help the poor?

Me?

Selling watermelons by the side of the road.

How does that help the poor?


If you don't know....I guess you don't know

 

[Vincent Vega]

You're selling watermelons to the subsistence farmer in rural Nigeria by the side of the gravel road? That's cool!

 

[BVS]

Me?

Selling watermelons by the side of the road.

How does that help the poor?


If you don't know....I guess you don't know

I give up

 

[INDY500]

Haiti. Case closed.

 

[BVS]

Haiti. Case closed.

Inequality is, after all, the foundation of a capitalist society. When individuals work hard, or innovate, they receive outsized rewards.

I know, why don't they just work harder? Then they wouldn't need our help...

Rush and INDY keeping it classy by using Haiti as a political argument

 

[Irvine511]

Haiti. Case closed.

yes, because capitalism just magically appears when we wish it to.

 

[anitram]

Haiti. Case closed.

Sure, it's neat to close that case, I mean it isn't as if the Western capitalist powers had ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT on Haiti. It was the lazy socialist Haitians who brought it on themselves.

 

[INDY500]

Sure, it's neat to close that case, I mean it isn't as if the Western capitalist powers had ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT on Haiti. It was the lazy socialist Haitians who brought it on themselves.

Yea, that's what I said.

The success most Haitian-Americans find here in America after coming to our country speaks to their talents and work ethic. Too bad they have to leave their home to realize their aspirations to succeed.

 

[BVS]

Yea, that's what I said.

The success most Haitian-Americans find here in America after coming to our country speaks to their talents and work ethic. Too bad they have to leave their home to realize their aspirations to succeed.

Shouldn't we build a wall for that kind of thing...

 

[digitize]

I know, why don't they just work harder? Then they wouldn't need our help...

Perhaps if the French had allowed for a free capitalistic society to develop there, instead of a socially darwinistic, slave-exploiting mercantalist society...

 

[Cactus Annie]

There 5 levels in the economy. Primary (raw materials), secondary (produce), tertinery(shops), service (finance, tourism, etc) and Quardinary (IT). The primary level of the economy is what comes out of the ground.

A Janiter invented the hoover by using a sucker and a pillowcase. JK Rowling was a single mum on unemployment benefits. Capatalism is good. Alan Sugar and Richard Bransen came from working class backgrounds. It enables the working class to get there work out of poverty if they have an idea. Socialist Russia didn't, it just left millions in poverty.

 

[Irvine511]

The success most Haitian-Americans find here in America after coming to our country speaks to their talents and work ethic. Too bad they have to leave their home to realize their aspirations to succeed.

because it's entirely accurate to compare Haiti with the United States.

Haiti's problems run far, far, far deeper than mindless "socialist" labels.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I agree in that I favor Capitalism over Socialism, but that is a very strong oversimplification in my view. Especially concerning the issue of economic equality, the neoliberal philosophy of trade and its effects on poor countries (free trade, nothing else), driving costs of production to an awful minimum, mainly by seeing manual labour in developing countries as a commodity that is to be exploited (their comparative advantage) etc.

Capitalism is very good when you live on the right side. But capitalism as is is hell, just as is socialism, for those who didn't have that luck in the life lottery.

 

[INDY500]

because it's entirely accurate to compare Haiti with the United States.

Compare them to the Dominican Republic than. Their island neighbor.

Haiti's problems run far, far, far deeper than mindless "socialist" labels.

But the thread is The Poor Need Capitalism. How anyone can argue the point is beyond me.

 

[Irvine511]

Compare them to the Dominican Republic than. Their island neighbor.

do you know anything about the history of Haiti? i mean right now, before you go google it.

 

[INDY500]

do you know anything about the history of Haiti? i mean right now, before you go google it.

I've learned more in the past 10 days then I ever knew. What specifically?

 

[Irvine511]

I've learned more in the past 10 days then I ever knew. What specifically?

then you should know that the issue is neither the presence or absence of capitalism, but the historical legacy of colonialism that's still working itself out today.

 

[Salome]

middle class needs capitalism
the poor need a break

 

[INDY500]

then you should know that the issue is neither the presence or absence of capitalism, but the historical legacy of colonialism that's still working itself out today.

Then Irvine let's compare Haiti to post colonial Singapore. Or on a much larger scale India the past generation.

 

[Bluer White]

"Hello, I'm from the Haitian government. I'm here to help."

 

[Irvine511]

Then Irvine let's compare Haiti to post colonial Singapore. Or on a much larger scale India the past generation.

i think you need to do more reading.

 

[INDY500]

i think you need to do more reading.

So you think the Haitians need a stable government more than capitalism?

Like Cuba.

 

[purpleoscar]

I agree in that I favor Capitalism over Socialism, but that is a very strong oversimplification in my view. Especially concerning the issue of economic equality, the neoliberal philosophy of trade and its effects on poor countries (free trade, nothing else), driving costs of production to an awful minimum, mainly by seeing manual labour in developing countries as a commodity that is to be exploited (their comparative advantage) etc.

Capitalism is very good when you live on the right side. But capitalism as is is hell, just as is socialism, for those who didn't have that luck in the life lottery.

The most important thing for socialists to understand is that without capitalism there is nothing to distribute to the poor. Despite Sweden having high personal taxes they left corporate taxes lower than the U.S. so jobs wouldn't disappear so easy. It's a symbiotic relationship when the taxes don't kill growth. When there's economic growth the government automatically collects more tax revenue so not "killing the goose that lays the golden egg" with high taxes on business is the road to success for any social reformers.

This is why socialist poor countries that didn't have a chance to develop can't distribute much because there isn't much of a tax base to provide European level social programs. Most economists look at 30-40% of GDP being in the hands of government as a maximum. If it gets too much higher than that for businesses then they have less profits to reinvest and grow. This makes young people and the chronic under-employed wait longer before opportunities arrive.

If we take the same logic for businesses we can also add this to individuals. Those who are working should save emergency funds, pay off their houses ASAP, and save for retirement. The more pool of funds is available the larger the cushion there is to deal with unemployment and eventually retirement. The Bible story of fat years and lean years still applies. This reduces the tendency to water down social programs when more applicants appear than the government expected.

 

[Vincent Vega]

I forgot, Sweden was a Socialist country.

There is a number of reasons why socialism isn't going to work, such as the elimination of property, taking away incentives to be productive, efficient and innovative and the impossibility of planning an economy. The problem isn't necessarily that people don't want to be productive or innovative, but that often enough they are not even allowed to. Engineers with the Trabant Werke, e.g., developed things similar to ABS and ESC back in the 1960s, but the government said "No, the car is fine as it is."
Well, anyway, socialism is a dream of a better world leading towards misery when applied.

You are referring to the neoclassical savings gap model, which is also championed by Jeffrey Sachs and institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. It's a very logical and nice theory, but so far when applied to economically underdeveloped nations it had usually failed for a number of reasons. One certainly being that it has been adopted as a one size fits all model, and another important factor that it's going alongside the free trade paradigm, with the IMF's structural adjustment programmes which are not only liberalising their trade in goods, but even liberalising their financial markets.

Free trade has depressed commodity prices for pretty much all raw materials, and countries with valuable metals in their grounds repeatedly suffer from 'Dutch disease' as the international trade agreements and contracts with the Western extraction companies totally screw over both the states and the citizens of those countries. Almost no money is left in their economies, so their chances of overcoming the savings gap is zero.

Social welfare programmes are so far out of reach for them it's pretty much an exercise in futility discussing it at this moment. They've hardly had any fat years in the past two to three decades, and those that could be considered fat didn't even pay off what was lost in the lean years.

 

[purpleoscar]

You are referring to the neoclassical savings gap model, which is also championed by Jeffrey Sachs and institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF. It's a very logical and nice theory, but so far when applied to economically underdeveloped nations it had usually failed for a number of reasons. One certainly being that it has been adopted as a one size fits all model, and another important factor that it's going alongside the free trade paradigm, with the IMF's structural adjustment programmes which are not only liberalising their trade in goods, but even liberalising their financial markets.

Free trade has depressed commodity prices for pretty much all raw materials, and countries with valuable metals in their grounds repeatedly suffer from 'Dutch disease' as the international trade agreements and contracts with the Western extraction companies totally screw over both the states and the citizens of those countries. Almost no money is left in their economies, so their chances of overcoming the savings gap is zero.

Social welfare programmes are so far out of reach for them it's pretty much an exercise in futility discussing it at this moment. They've hardly had any fat years in the past two to three decades, and those that could be considered fat didn't even pay off what was lost in the lean years.

What Jeffrey Sachs and the IMF need to understand is that the west got rich not just from trade (though that is VERY important) but because of proper private property rights, justice system to punish robbery and bribery, and cultural attitudes towards limiting the number of children (having 3 children instead of 7) and controlling spending so there is a surplus of wealth to invest. Many of these countries don't have one of these institutions let alone all. Letting countries develop their own resources is important so that they have something to trade. I also want to see Africa being allowed to use fossil fuels to get cheap energy.

China is an interesting example. Despite having a dictatorship the communist party allowed markets in certain zones and they have flourished without tons of aid. I think they didn't want to head for the real socialist dictatorship of N. Korea with it's horrible economic consequences. There is a role for government in terms of education, roads and some healthcare to facilitate growth and to fill in the gaps where markets can't deliver. If the government allowed this freedom throughout China many poor in collective farms could improve their choices. The Chinese have an attitude of "the dynasty" so saving money is for future generations. With this attitude inheritance can build a middle class which would be useful in a democracy. When people have a stake in society they want a say. Of course I can't ignore cultural factors so I only have a hope that China (which has never had a democracy) will take the plunge sometime in my lifetime.

The cultural attitudes towards markets are the least understood elements with Western economists and despite the hurling of slurs like "colonialism" and "racism" we have to study what cultural norms exist that impede development. In the west, trade and usury was considered evil during the middle ages and philosophers like Aquinas believed in "just prices". We also have to hear controversial economists who point out the negatives of aid and dependency that no one will talk about. Here's a good debate:

The Debates | Munk Debates

We can't forget that a farmer trying to compete against free food aid will have to find another job and third party to third party transfers of funds from rich to poor countries often don't get spent properly and end up in a Swiss bank accounts. We also have to realise that free trade doesn't really exist and there are plenty of barriers throughout the world (even the west) that are still there. Economics is still a nacent science and we have a LONG way to go to master it. Aid is a good short-term solution but a long-term solution hasn't been found for all cultures.

 

[Vincent Vega]

China resembles many of the features of Asian economy. It's more of a special case than a prime example, as it is a divided country. There is Economic China which since 1978 has become gradually more capitalistic, and there is Political China which is still clinging to socialism. I hope they will leave that path sometime, too.

Better examples of those economies would be countries such as Japan, South Korea or Taiwan. They closed their economies to grow their industries, and in that respect had a very socialist attitude where the government played a very active role in allocating resources such as import goods and bank credits, decided which industries it would promote and acted as an intermediary between the banking system and the industries. Saving rates throughout Asia are very high. It's the total opposite of especially the US. Their problems, ie. the Asian crisis, started when they began to open their financial markets.

On the contrary you have South and Latin America and many African nations who adopted the policies eventually formulated in the Washington Consensus of 1990.

I don't think it's by accident. The IMF can clearly see that their structural adjustment programmes have been hurting every one nation which they forced to implement it. Western states can clearly see how our MNCs are going into those countries to exploit the ressources and people. Then they argue the States should just negotiate good FDI terms when both actors are simply negotiating on totally different levels. But there is no motion to do anything about it, as it would hurt our economies.
The EU's subsidies for the farming sector and the exports to countries where local producers simply cannot compete these prices, are such a cynical and destructive policy.

Not even talking about futures and derivatives markets which are entirely disconnected from the goods they are trading.

Aid is fundamentally important, but the structures of trade are contradicting any efforts to help.