NationStates Jolt Archive

Is poverty a disease? If so, can there possibly be a cure? I bring this up in response to the recent UN poverty summit in New York where the leaders of the UN nations can't come to an agreement on how to eradicate the world of poverty. Call me evil if you like, but I am less concerned with poverty in places such as Africa and more concerned with poverty closer to home. I don't care what country you live in, poverty is a problem right where you live.

The current system we live in wants us to believe that poverty is a cycle that passes from one generation to the next. The general theory is, poor people don't eat enough of the right foods, therefore their babies are malnourished. Malnourishment affects their cognitive ability, and poor cognitive performance means that they fail at school (if they attend) and then do not get training or jobs that will get them good pay to feed their families the right foods and so on. (very generalized)

I believe poverty is a culture of its very own which manifests a state of mind caused by poor decisions. Yes you can be born into poverty. Yes you can have poverty "happen" to you, but unlike a disease you have a choice to get out of poverty once you are capable of earning a living. Of course this mainly applies to poverty in industrialized nations and is affected by other factors such as health, housing, education, behavior, and culture. Culture is the culprit of poverty. American anthropologist, Oscar Lewis once wrote:

The people in the culture of poverty have a strong feeling of marginality of helplessness, of dependency, of not belonging. They are like aliens in their own country, convinced that the existing institutions do not serve their interests and needs. Along with this feeling of powerlessness is a widespread feeling of inferiority, of personal unworthiness. This is true of the slum dwellers of Mexico City, who do not constitute a distinct ethnic or racial group and do not suffer from racial discrimination. In the United States the culture of poverty of the Negroes has the additional disadvantage of racial discrimination. People with a culture of poverty have very little sense of history. They are a marginal people who know only their own troubles, their own local conditions, their own neighborhood, their own way of life. Usually, they have neither the knowledge, the vision nor the ideology to see the similarities between their problems and those of others like themselves elsewhere in the world. In other words, they are not class conscious, although they are very sensitive indeed to status distinctions. When the poor become class conscious or members of trade union organizations, or when they adopt an internationalist outlook on the world they are, in my view, no longer part of the culture of poverty although they may still be desperately poor.

If poverty is a culture like I suggest, how can it be possible to eradicate? If it is a cycle, how do we permanently break it? If it is a disease, where do we look for a cure?

i think it is people who gave up an education to get welfare support.


but everyone has reasons some good some bad for being poor.

Poverty is a culture of marginalization and ignorance. To understand poverty one must first realize that being poor and being impovrished are different. A poor person is not threatened with starvation, can overcome his condition with education and hard work, and our not a drain upon the society in which they live (they are positive economic units). Those in poverty tend to be vulnrable to famine and disease, lack education, are unable to get out of their condition without help, and tend to be negative economic units.

In the Western World there are more poor then impoverished while in the developing world the impoverished make up a significant number of people in those countries (sometimes a majority). There have been reversals in the West however... Now more Americans are living in poverty...

Poverty is just a part of capitalism, to put it bluntly. You can't have rich kids living off their parents' money without people propping them up. You can't really get rid of poverty until you get rid of capitalism.

get rid of capitalism.
good idea.

Poverty is just a part of capitalism, to put it bluntly. You can't have rich kids living off their parents' money without people propping them up. You can't really get rid of poverty until you get rid of capitalism.

People in noncapitalist countries are a multitude of times poorer than those in capitalist countries, and there's no hope for any kind of improvement.
At least in capitalism there is some kind of opportunity to improve yourself, and if you provide poor people with the things necessary to attain it, the system will work better than any currently imagined.

I believe poverty is a culture of its very own which manifests a state of mind caused by poor decisions. Yes you can be born into poverty. Yes you can have poverty "happen" to you, but unlike a disease you have a choice to get out of poverty once you are capable of earning a living. Of course this mainly applies to poverty in industrialized nations and is affected by other factors such as health, housing, education, behavior, and culture. Culture is the culprit of poverty.

I agree.


If poverty is a culture like I suggest, how can it be possible to eradicate? If it is a cycle, how do we permanently break it? If it is a disease, where do we look for a cure?

As long as people make poor decisions it will never be eradicated. For example Letila's continuing poor decision to blame capitalism for everything.

People in noncapitalist countries are a multitude of times poorer than those in capitalist countries, and there's no hope for any kind of improvement.

Yes, which is why feudalism and state "socialism" suck and I never said they were any good.

At least in capitalism there is some kind of opportunity to improve yourself, and if you provide poor people with the things necessary to attain it, the system will work better than any currently imagined.

Even the USSR and some slave societies had the possibility of moving up (Stalin came from a small nation in Asia under USSR control, for example). Just because it's possible to move up doesn't mean that its probable. It's hopelessly utopian to claim that if everyone would just get off their asses, we'd all be rich.

The general theory is, poor people don't eat enough of the right foods, therefore their babies are malnourished. Malnourishment affects their cognitive ability, and poor cognitive performance means that they fail at school (if they attend) and then do not get training or jobs that will get them good pay to feed their families the right foods and so on. (very generalized)



I've never heard this theory before. Why do you think anyone else ascribes to it?

As to the question: what you're asking seems to be less "What is poverty?" and more "Why are the children of the impoverished also impoverished?" The answer: social mobility is expensive. Even if you get a scholarship to go to college, you're giving up all the money you could be earning if you had a full-time job during those years, money your family needs to survive. It's too expensive both in time and money to do well in school, especially when the world around you is trying to screw you over. If there is a "culture of poverty" its a deeply pragmatic one.

Yes, which is why feudalism and state "socialism" suck and I never said they were any good.

No matter what, that's what you're going to get with any attempt to implement any alternative to capitalism.


Even the USSR and some slave societies had the possibility of moving up (Stalin came from a small nation in Asia under USSR control, for example). Just because it's possible to move up doesn't mean that its probable. It's hopelessly utopian to claim that if everyone would just get off their asses, we'd all be rich.

Stalin brutalized, backstabbed, and murdered his way to the top. He didn't earn it by merit but by terror.

That's why we need to provide aid to people who want to succeed; education, welfare, and any other necessary aid should be provided to give them the best chance possible. The capitalist system can work for everyone who wants to put the effort in if we manage it well.

Poverty is just a part of capitalism, to put it bluntly. You can't have rich kids living off their parents' money without people propping them up. You can't really get rid of poverty until you get rid of capitalism.
You're kidding, right? America, the closest thing to a 'pure' capitalist country in the world, ahs a much higher standard of living for its 'poor' than any other nation on the planet. Poverty is not a generic issue that can be solved with one catch-all solution; the causes for it vary wildly from case to case.

Try again.

You're kidding, right? America, the closest thing to a 'pure' capitalist country in the world, ahs a much higher standard of living for its 'poor' than any other nation on the planet. Poverty is not a generic issue that can be solved with one catch-all solution; the causes for it vary wildly from case to case.

Try again.
Sweden and the "socialist welfare states" have much higher standards of living for their poor then the United States, and you know that Melkor.

You can't really get rid of poverty until you get rid of capitalism.

Let's just assume that poverty is a byproduct of capitalism, at least in capitalist societies. Are you suggesting we eradicate a world-wide capitalist culture in order to eradicate poverty? I don't think that is the answer. I think that will create an even larger gap between the haves and have nots by eliminating the middle class all together.

Sweden and the "socialist welfare states" have much higher standards of living for their poor then the United States, and you know that Melkor.
Yet another person hell-bent on telling me what I do and don't know. You guys get more amusing every time.

EDIT: I had an argument here, but the one below is a lot better. Answer it as opposed to wasting your time with the one I had here.

Sweden and the "socialist welfare states" have much higher standards of living for their poor then the United States, and you know that Melkor.

Yes, and they have less than the population of Ohio. Those states only work because there aren't that many poor people to begin with.

Let's just assume that poverty is a byproduct of capitalism, at least in capitalist societies. Are you suggesting we eradicate a world-wide capitalist culture in order to eradicate poverty? I don't think that is the answer. I think that will create an even larger gap between the haves and have nots by eliminating the middle class all together.

It would be an end to class as we know it. There would no longer be an upper class.

You're kidding, right? America, the closest thing to a 'pure' capitalist country in the world, ahs a much higher standard of living for its 'poor' than any other nation on the planet. Poverty is not a generic issue that can be solved with one catch-all solution; the causes for it vary wildly from case to case.

Try again.

Yes, like those nations with sweatshops, I'm sure they are loving capitalism.

No matter what, that's what you're going to get with any attempt to implement any alternative to capitalism.


Try to see outside the either-or dichotomy. There are plenty of options besides capitalism and feudalism. Have you heard of parecon, anarcho-communism, mutualism?

You're kidding, right? America, the closest thing to a 'pure' capitalist country in the world, ahs a much higher standard of living for its 'poor' than any other nation on the planet. Poverty is not a generic issue that can be solved with one catch-all solution; the causes for it vary wildly from case to case.

Try again.

America has minimum wage, unions, welfare, safety/environmental regulations, public education, and somehow we're more "pure capitalist" than nations that don't have any of these? How does that work?

I've never heard this theory before. Why do you think anyone else ascribes to it?

It's called "the cycle of poverty"

Even if you get a scholarship to go to college, you're giving up all the money you could be earning if you had a full-time job during those years, money your family needs to survive. It's too expensive both in time and money to do well in school, especially when the world around you is trying to screw you over. If there is a "culture of poverty" its a deeply pragmatic one.

Are you claiming that you can't go to shcool full time and also work full time? I held two jobs, worked 60 and 70 hours a week and still went to college full time and earned my degree. I have many friends that did the same. I think it's just a cultural decision to choose between work and school. And when you live in an area where there is no work and still choose not to be educated, it's very poor decision making and indicative of the culture they live in.

It would be an end to class as we know it. There would no longer be an upper class.



Yes, like those nations with sweatshops, I'm sure they are loving capitalism.



Try to see outside the either-or dichotomy. There are plenty of options besides capitalism and feudalism. Have you heard of parecon, anarcho-communism, mutualism?

Class is not monetary, it is social. Humanity has had class since we had sex differentiation, you can't claim that getting rid of capitalism will get rid of class.

It would be an end to class as we know it. There would no longer be an upper class.

No, you'd just call the upper class something else. And yeah you'd get rid of 'class as we know it.' Destroying the cultures of the world sure does make it hard to recognize. But its not a plan.


Try to see outside the either-or dichotomy. There are plenty of options besides capitalism and feudalism. Have you heard of parecon, anarcho-communism, mutualism?

What a laugh! You're one of the biggest either-or's around here. To you it's, either class-oppression-capitalism or your anticapitalist "options." You see all capitalism as stereotypical Mr Monopoly type corporatism and all anticapitalism - except socialism now, glad to see you've changed a little at least - as the savior from Oppression. Blah. Have you heard of "capitalism that doesn't endorse sweatshops?" Does anyone here argue for the existence of sweatshops? I've never heard anyone do that. But you can't get out of your dichotomy...

Poverty is all three. It's a disease for obvious reasons, a cycle because it is only broken by a few individuals in society, and a culture because of its cyclical nature. Don't believe me? Read a bit on social reproduction, e.i. how dynasties form and socioeconomic groups can remain static.
The real daunting question is why some societies break the cycle of poverty almost all at once. China had more than half of its population leave deep poverty in the past twenty years, and India is making similar strides. Eastern European nations are also progressing, even thriving, after communism and the chaos of its fall.

Yes, like those nations with sweatshops, I'm sure they are loving capitalism.

Abuses of capitalism that have to be corrected. The problem there is a failiure of regulation, not the system.


Try to see outside the either-or dichotomy. There are plenty of options besides capitalism and feudalism. Have you heard of parecon, anarcho-communism, mutualism?

Yes, but the problem is still the same. No large political entity exists that can verify these systems, and it is almost certain that they would be ineffective when applied to a large scale. There are simply too many people and too many conflicting interests for these to work on a large scale without degenerating in to another USSR.

Poverty hmm well its definetly started by the rich, and there insatiable greed...sorry you have to be sick inthe head to want to make 97 billion dollars...my god that used to be the gnp of the US before people started hoarding the money forcing you to make more and more and more then we have minimum wages that are atrocious, look at kansas its minimum wage is 1/4 of B.C's and its a joke, in BC we have jobs everywhere and a min wage of 8 dollars [715 american].


Mainly poverty is caused by a lack of jobs and resources. Lets use the US as an example. now 67% of the US population makes minimum wage, or just over minimum wage. This according to the UN makes you as third world nation. Now how did you get there? its simple. 95% of the money in the US is in the hands of about 1% of the population, they hoarde it, hide it in offshore banks and force the mints to make more money making your money worth less and less. Couple this with conservative attitudes and lack of social services this traps people in minimum wage jobs for there whole lives, with absolutely no way to advance. Now couple this with americas resource poverty [yes you have no resources] During the cold war you dug up all your iron and chopped up all your wood to the point where your business are tarrifing everyone so you can get cheaper products because you cannot sustain your own industries, and of course with self serving american politics it becomes so easy for your business to do it, causing you to lose more jobs, more money, inflation rises. Then to top it off you get a nitwit like george bush in office, a man who has ran every company his arab friends started for him in to the ground, running the country in to poverty.

So is poverty a disease? yes. Is the disease infecting the poor? NO

Poverty is a disease of greed this disease is infecting most large corporate doctrine, most businessmen and generally anyone in power. They dont want to change the status quo so they can still have parties that would ",shame caligula" and still feel better then other people, despite the fact they delegate all there work to others and reap profits off hard working citizens. The cure for poverty is universal minimum wage of 13 dollars like in australia and price fixing. Or we can just kill all the really greedy rich people and take there wealth and redistribute it amongst the people then we would all be millionaires

Yes, like those nations with sweatshops, I'm sure they are loving capitalism.
Nice reply. Almost. It actually comes pretty cl--well, nowhere near close to answering my argument, as usual.

Look, sweatshop labor is an issue I am more than certain you don't understand. Yes, a lot of the facilities are badly in need of safety upgrades and new machinery, but no company in their right mind is going to make that kind of investment in them when the government could just turn around and nationalize [!] the facility right after they do it, shafting the company out of millions.

Also, the 'horrible pay rate' that is often mentioned by our media outlet is still paid out in American dollars. $.50 USD in most countries is going to get you a lot farther than an equivalent minumum wage using the indigenous currency. Given the amount of labor these people use, a meaningful increase in the paid wage will result in runaway inflation, which in most countries is already fairly ridiculous. As shitty as the jobs are [and they most certainly are that], the people work them because there are no other opportunities in their country, a characteristic of nearly any statist regime.

Is it a bad situation? Yes. Does it deserve to be solved? Certainly. But eradicating capitalism is certainly not the answer. You think those people have it bad now, just wait to see them after we outlaw private industry in the States. Instead of getting a wage, they get nothing, because the ivory tower pinkos here think that they'd be better off without a job. Also, giving capitalism the heave-ho in the States does not guarantee any meaningful policy change in $SWEATSHOPCOUNTRY, putting your precious laborers back at square one.

Tannelorn? Elric-y :P

America has minimum wage, unions, welfare, safety/environmental regulations, public education, and somehow we're more "pure capitalist" than nations that don't have any of these? How does that work?
What? Who's more capitalist than us? We might have those programs, but they're nowhere near as pervasive or far reaching as comparable programs in most other countries, excluding the third world ones that don't have the money to do it in the first place.

It's called "the cycle of poverty"



Are you claiming that you can't go to shcool full time and also work full time? I held two jobs, worked 60 and 70 hours a week and still went to college full time and earned my degree. I have many friends that did the same. I think it's just a cultural decision to choose between work and school. And when you live in an area where there is no work and still choose not to be educated, it's very poor decision making and indicative of the culture they live in.

The cycle of poverty is not about malnutrition making people stupid. If you're going to set that up as a straw man, at least post a reference.

Problem is more going to school full time, working full time, paying for a drug addiction you got in the cradle, paying the nearby gangs to not beat you up, and caring for your family. Especially if the school you go to full time is funded by the miniscule amount of tax dollars from your neighborhood. The bowels of poverty are not easily escaped.

Once you're past that level of poverty then you're right, it should be a lot easier to be upwardly mobile. At that point the pressure mostly is social.

poverty is (hu)man made



and it's not because 'people are lazy'

being poor is hard work,
ask someone who works at Kmart.
Or is that a little too 'down scale' for some people's tastes?


and,
believe it or not, there are people out there who
work hard to be poor on purpose.

heck, think of all those Christians.
They're supposed to give up all their belongings and follow
their God

What? Who's more capitalist than us? We might have those programs, but they're nowhere near as pervasive or far reaching as comparable programs in most other countries, excluding the third world ones that don't have the money to do it in the first place.

Not only don't have the money, don't have the power or the inclination. These things don't and can't happen in most of the third world. They are more capitalist than us. Pure capitalism+rich countries with some degree of state-socialism=someone gets screwed.

Melkor...your nuts lol. You know legally according to the WTO they have to pay 3 50 american min wage, andthey dont...see we are about to get whupped..china spearheaded and is spending alot of time and care institionalising a minimum wage higher then kansas and about the same as most states..3 50 and not only that its with a billion people who already have 350 million people in the middle class making ten+ dollars an hour american. this means already china is technically richer in civilian buying power then you, they have social security and health care and price fixing..they are going to overtake us because they have modified capitalism and it worked, its the only way to do it, in fact its amusing to know american business are pulling out of china cause its cheaper to pay people in kentucky then in the industrialised chinese cities and provinces.

Not only don't have the money, don't have the power or the inclination. These things don't and can't happen in most of the third world. They are more capitalist than us. Pure capitalism+rich countries with some degree of state-socialism=someone gets screwed.
Now I've heard it all. If African countries were capitalists, they'd have money. It's generally a widely conceded fact [even by Marx himself] that capitalism generates wealth.

and about that whole working or education...its NOT that easy...most post secondary educations are about two years pay for someone on minimum wage, and not everyone can get a scholarship, there are limits...you have NO idea what you are talking about on that one east america, i know i have to work a crap job and go to college and i am not even able to afford it i have to go one class at a time one every semester and i can barely afford it so you dont know anything about it. And i wont lie.. I am LUCKY to have had good enough grades to get in, some people who have to take care of little brothers and sisters dont have time to get those good grades. Our society is f***ed we have this idea that independence is sooo good, thinking its the wayof things.

Humans help each other, always have its why we survived. The only place on earth where children are expected to be independent and on there own at 18 is north america and its not because of any sort of belief or freedom loving ways. its because people want to rent more apartments, sell more furniture, more cars, more tv's more cable..so they tell us that to be independent is good, is glorious. And its so wrong, so untrue. Living on your own is a miserable experience to most people, and its thetrap of rent that in many cases keeps people poor, 1000 dollars a month out of a 1200 dollar a month job is impossible to live on, but many people have to do it. And that is why people cant go to college or get trapped in minimum wage jobs, or the same apartment. ITs the greed of the few that keeps the rest of us poor.

African nations are capitilist, and they still arent rich. Because capitalism, at least American capitalism is based on screwing over everyone else so that you can get ahead and become very very very rich. Its that simple... Sorry Melkor capitalism sucks, its just the best we have. Now one way to fix it is price fixing, which is what we should do on all essential things like school, rent, food and gasoline not on frills and the like but definetly on things people need. People are poor because others are greedy, in a pure capitalist society..its even worse. Think of britain in the industrial revolution where everyone was worked to death for pennies a day

America has minimum wage, unions, welfare, safety/environmental regulations, public education, and somehow we're more "pure capitalist" than nations that don't have any of these? How does that work?

How are unions, safety/environmental regulations and public education uncapitalist?

While poverty can be attacked, and with reasonable action diminished, it can never, never, never be wholly eliminated. There are simply some who are incompetent, stupid, or lazy, and there has never been a large scale, long term society created without poverty. Human nature dictates that "the poor will always be with us."

Because capitalism, at least American capitalism is based on screwing over everyone else so that you can get ahead

No not really. Common misconception. A corporation, or any business, can't function if everyone is solely screwing over everyone else.

Now I've heard it all. If African countries were capitalists, they'd have money. It's generally a widely conceded fact [even by Marx himself] that capitalism generates wealth.

Hmm...you use an example of wealth to prove pure capitalism is good, then you use lack of wealth as a criterion to rule out otherwise capitalist nations as being part of the discussion. Am I the only person who sees something wrong with this.

In any case it takes more than a few decades of pure capitalism to reverse the effects of colonialism. Much of the third world is extremely capitalist, but they're the late bloomers. Hard to get past poverty in a world where wealth matters.

People in noncapitalist countries are a multitude of times poorer than those in capitalist countries, and there's no hope for any kind of improvement.
At least in capitalism there is some kind of opportunity to improve yourself, and if you provide poor people with the things necessary to attain it, the system will work better than any currently imagined.
What? So by your logic China is poorer then Etheopia?

no he is right, thats consumerist, in consumerist ideals giving people money means they buy more of your stuff, the only reason we even have minimum wage laws, was becuase the unions proved it could be profitable fro the vast majority of people to have more then enough money for subsistance..but not much more then that and lately our minimum wages havent kept up with the inflation so we are heading back to a min wage is subsistence, so it needs to be raised. PErsonally Australia is a great example. It has a miniscule unemployment and 16 an hour min wage [around 12 bucks american 13 canadian]

African nations are capitilist, and they still arent rich. Because capitalism, at least American capitalism is based on screwing over everyone else so that you can get ahead and become very very very rich. Its that simple... Sorry Melkor capitalism sucks, its just the best we have. Now one way to fix it is price fixing, which is what we should do on all essential things like school, rent, food and gasoline not on frills and the like but definetly on things people need. People are poor because others are greedy, in a pure capitalist society..its even worse. Think of britain in the industrial revolution where everyone was worked to death for pennies a day
No, most African nations aren't in ANY economic system. Without a functioning, non-corrupt government it is hard to even begin thinking about establishing ANY economic system. And no, price fixing only harms quality, as it makes it unprofitable to produce certain items, squelches competition, and harms innovation. Look at Canada; after implementing price controls on medicine, the amount of new drugs produced by the nation and the quality of them has fallen dramatically. Also, all nations that have implemented controls on their prices have seen businesses flee to places where there are no such controls, thus harming the economy in the end.

African nations are capitilist, and they still arent rich. Because capitalism, at least American capitalism is based on screwing over everyone else so that you can get ahead and become very very very rich. Its that simple... Sorry Melkor capitalism sucks, its just the best we have. Now one way to fix it is price fixing, which is what we should do on all essential things like school, rent, food and gasoline not on frills and the like but definetly on things people need. People are poor because others are greedy, in a pure capitalist society..its even worse. Think of britain in the industrial revolution where everyone was worked to death for pennies a day

African nations are kleptocracies burdened with 40 or 50 years of failed Soviet-style government socialism. Their corruption, incomptent leaders, and indebted, weak one-crop economies are what are hurting Africa. Capitalism would improve their situation if it was properly implemented and not left in the hands of corrupt governments.

Price fixing always leads to shortages, in both capitalist and communist countries. It eliminates competition and reduces overall production of goods. You have to increase supply to lower prices, and keep competition in the markets. That is the best way to regulate prices.

Capitalism doesn't suck; it works, and it has been proven. Nothing else is better than it because it works.

America, the closest thing to a 'pure' capitalist country in the world, ahs a much higher standard of living for its 'poor' than any other nation on the planet.
And, how do you know this to be true?

How are unions, safety/environmental regulations and public education uncapitalist?

They're not part of "pure capitalism" as in let the market do what it feels like. I'm just showing we try to regulate the economy much more than most of the third world.

china is actually richer then us but the purposefully keep there dollar low so more people invest in them so it makes them proportionately poorer also the wealth in china is spread out giving them spending power

What? So by your logic China is poorer then Etheopia?

Ethiopia isn't capitalist. It is burdened by decades of archaic and corrupt Soviet style government, corruption, and debt brought on by failed economic schemes.

China's not much better; 25% rural and 10-11% urban unemployment, gigantic wage gaps, an archaic and inefficent government, aging population and zero hope for reform are all dragging it down. Life in China is great if you're one of the priveliged elite. The other 80-90% of the population is in squalor.

African nations are capitilist, and they still arent rich.
Just because they [may] be run by rich people doesn't automatically make them capitalist. I don't imagine many African leaders would tolerate much domestic competition. Thus, by any tradiditional definition, they're probably statists. They might have vaguely capitalistic laws on the books, but they're probably just technicalities to allow for the Glorious Leader to generate and hold onto his wealth.

Because capitalism, at least American capitalism is based on screwing over everyone else so that you can get ahead and become very very very rich.
Success is not always contingent upon someone else's failures or shortcomings. Most of the time, it just means having a really, really good idea.

Its that simple... Sorry Melkor capitalism sucks, its just the best we have.
Oh, it's that simple, is it? Really now, I wasn't aware that you were some economic luminary that was making earth shattering revelations that centuries of human intution could not have possibly devised!

Bollocks to that.

Now one way to fix it is price fixing, which is what we should do on all essential things like school, rent, food and gasoline not on frills and the like but definetly on things people need.
Ummm... we have a name for people who engage in price fixing in this country. They're called 'felons.' Price fixing is currently paying farmers to not grow crops on their land. Price fixing will undoubtedly have the same effect in other areas of the market: in order to maintain a certain pricing level, production may have to be scaled back, placing the fixed price higher than it would normally be in a free market.

Sorry, but it's not that simple.

People are poor because others are greedy, in a pure capitalist society..its even worse. Think of britain in the industrial revolution where everyone was worked to death for pennies a day
You think poor people aren't greedy too? If they're so selfless, then why can't I walk down the street without ten of them begging me for my fucking pocket change? Povery may be caused by irrational greed in many cases [and i'm sure it is], but this generalization is completely fucking absurd. Like I said earlier, success does not always depend on someone else's lack of it, except in cases where you're directly competing with them in a business environment.

African nations are kleptocracies burdened with 40 or 50 years of failed Soviet-style government socialism. Their corruption, incomptent leaders, and indebted, weak one-crop economies are what are hurting Africa. Capitalism would improve their situation if it was properly implemented and not left in the hands of corrupt governments.

Price fixing always leads to shortages, in both capitalist and communist countries. It eliminates competition and reduces overall production of goods. You have to increase supply to lower prices, and keep competition in the markets. That is the best way to regulate prices.

Capitalism doesn't suck; it works, and it has been proven. Nothing else is better than it because it works.

The problem is that without diluting capitalism a little most African countries can't avoid any of these things. These countries need to be able to build infrastructure, break up monopolies, relieve debts, and introduce new crops to get themselves to a level where they can succeed in a capitalist world.

The problem is that without diluting capitalism a little most African countries can't avoid any of these things. These countries need to be able to build infrastructure, break up monopolies, relieve debts, and introduce new crops to get themselves to a level where they can succeed in a capitalist world.

We need to forgive old debt, loan new money at low rates, and provide international expertise to get their private sector running, and then once the economy is diversified we can slowly begin to remove the aid and let them stand alone on their economy. These nations need help and reform first, and then they need capitalism that is properly regulated.

Just because they [may] be run by rich people doesn't automatically make them capitalist. I don't imagine many African leaders would tolerate much domestic competition. Thus, by any tradiditional definition, they're probably statists. They might have vaguely capitalistic laws on the books, but they're probably just technicalities to allow for the Glorious Leader to generate and hold onto his wealth.



There are statist third world nations. They have failed. There are pure capitalist third world nations. They have failed. There are both dictatorships and democracies in the third world. They have failed. While you're referring to the African third world, the Asian third world (excepting the communist bits) and the European third world (same exception) don't have a problem with a state that dominates the economy, they have a problem with an economy that dominates the economy (I.E. foreign monopolies). They are more capitalist than the US, they are also more screwed. Capitalism helps only when you're capitalist early on.

We need to forgive old debt, loan new money at low rates, and provide international expertise to get their private sector running, and then once the economy is diversified we can slowly begin to remove the aid and let them stand alone on their economy. These nations need help and reform first, and then they need capitalism that is properly regulated.

Exactly. Poor nations need to dilute capitalism to be able to have pure capitalism later. Just as (to get to the topic of this post) poor people need to have a diluted form of capitalism to help their children succeed in a purer form of capitalism. I'm glad you agree with me.

ummm no not all of africa was communist, in fact it wasnt even half, most tried to model themselves after britain and the USA and it faile,d Sierra leone was one of the few successes till Al qeada invaded it for diamonds to fund there war. So that point is down, chalk another one up to blaming something else lol. Communism didnt make people poor, in fact it was the massive nuclear missile build up in the 70's that made russia bankrupt, kind of like the massive missule build up and vietnam war made america broke and by the way you guys are broke. Reagan pulled you out of a recession by get this..selling your nation to richer people like china and saudi arabia during the eighties with so many treasury bonds your country has been bought 6 times over...and the best is the Euro is now more attractive then the american dollar, compounding the current recession, and incompetent government with the fact that reagans quick fix doomed the nation..thats why your poverty rate has increased so much in the last few years. So obviously there are ways out of poverty, just the Reagan fix was not a very good one.

As i said capitalism is the best we have but does it need to be evil?
I mean come on does it have to be more evil then Shredder, Darth Vader
and micheal jackson combined? i mean we are talking flat out ming the merciless evil here. Price fix essentials, nationalise essential services and businesses and make some bloody humanitarian laws and standards here. Also ban the corporation, force them to be companies. Having them act as one private citizen is crap..they need serious enforcement and penalties for acting like the villains they act like! Haliburton employees in Iraq were a spitting image of japanese business men in Shanghai surveying the records, the same looks of glee and callousness. Now this war for there benefit caused poverty..and if you start looking at the cycle of poverty you see those with money at the top, as they try to get more and more and more money with no limit, there is no enough..and thats the problem, not that there should be enough or a cap on how much you can have..butthe minimum wages should be calculated to let you have a good life and not just survive. Price fixing helps too.

The problem is that without diluting capitalism a little most African countries can't avoid any of these things. These countries need to be able to build infrastructure, break up monopolies, relieve debts, and introduce new crops to get themselves to a level where they can succeed in a capitalist world.

I agree.... BBC World News reported on Niger's state of poverty last night and more or less said the same thing. The situation is desperate there. They showed babies that were hours away from starvation yet the entire area was loaded with food from the recent crop harvest and the masses of international aid. The starving could not have that food because the donated food would lessen the value of the harvested crops. In this extreme case and in other African nations, extreme poverty is definately a byproduct of an improper introduction of capitalism.

They're not part of "pure capitalism" as in let the market do what it feels like. I'm just showing we try to regulate the economy much more than most of the third world.

Unions can be a part of "pure capitalism" just fine. Nothing about capitalism disallows people from forming groups around a cause, in a peaceful and voluntary manner of course. Nothing about capitalism disallows said groups from bargaining with employers over wages and benifits (the whole point of the market is to provide a place where parties negociate over prices and costs, afterall).

Environmental regulation can be a part of "pure capitalism" as well. Take, for instance, the cornerstone of capitalist economics: private property. Private property can be used as a mechanism to enact environmental regulation. Someone who owns land will want to maintain that land so as to maintain maximum value. Thus landowners have a vested interest in not trashing their land, and in preventing others from trashing their land.

Indeed, it is usually the "public" lands which suffer the most from careless polluters. There is a group of private cabins surrounded by a national park that I visit regularly. Whenever I visit, I notice that the private plots upon which the private cabins are built are well maintained and clean. Plenty of trash can be found, however, in the nearby creek which remains on national park land. Allow the land to be owned by concerned stewards, and it will be well taken care of. Don't do so, and we'll have to rely on nice guys like me to take an afternoon to clean up after those who cannot be bothered to respect the environment. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Frankly, the environment is in the sad shape that it is exactly because we insist on preventing "pure capitalism." :D

Poverty is a state one gets into. any number of things can put you into this state, but only you can get out of it. only those who both want and are able to become prosperous become so.

remember; take a wealthy man's wealth and give it all to a poor man. the wealthy man will be wealthy again, nd the poor man will be poor again.

...Indeed, it is usually the "public" lands which suffer the most from careless polluters....
Yes, yes YES! A lot of this has to do with the fact that the government in this country cannot be sued over environmental damage like private companies can.

Poverty seems to be a function of the bell-shaped curve tendency among natural systems. It is also subject to widly differing interpretations as to what constitutes "poverty," depending upon things like culture, geographic location, etc. Until we can all agree on a definition of "poverty" which applies across cultural, political, social, economic and geographical lines, there can really be no substantive discussion about "solutions."

My preferred definition of poverty is the presence of malnutrition, a lack of housing and clothes adequate to the environment, and upward mobility effectively nonexistent.

Yes, yes YES! A lot of this has to do with the fact that the government in this country cannot be sued over environmental damage like private companies can.

Exactly. I cannot fathom why people think it's a good idea to entrust the environment to the biggest polluter ever. It makes absolutely no sense to me. If we want to protect the environment, take it away from the government and give it back to the people.

Poverty seems to be a function of the bell-shaped curve tendency among natural systems. It is also subject to widly differing interpretations as to what constitutes "poverty," depending upon things like culture, geographic location, etc. Until we can all agree on a definition of "poverty" which applies across cultural, political, social, economic and geographical lines, there can really be no substantive discussion about "solutions."

My preferred definition of poverty is the presence of malnutrition, a lack of housing and clothes adequate to the environment, and upward mobility effectively nonexistent.

I agree with your discription as it relates to poverty in the US and I would also add inadequate education starting at the elementary level.

So, in order to discuss possible solutions we have to find the root causes to these inadequacies. A good place to start would be with a discussion on cultural priorities. For example, I would consider myself middle-class and I place priorities on education and good work ethics. My friend, a kindergarten teacher in a low income area, would say that there is more of an importance placed on entertainment. She sees children miss days at a time and then come to school with holes in their shoes and talk all day about how many X-box games they have.

I agree with your discription as it relates to poverty in the US and I would also add inadequate education starting at the elementary level.

So, in order to discuss possible solutions we have to find the root causes to these inadequacies. A good place to start would be with a discussion on cultural priorities. For example, I would consider myself middle-class and I place priorities on education and good work ethics. My friend, a kindergarten teacher in a low income area, would say that there is more of an importance placed on entertainment. She sees children miss days at a time and then come to school with holes in their shoes and talk all day about how many X-box games they have.
I had intended to include inadequate education under "nonexistent mechanisms for upward mobility," but you're probably right in making it a separate category. :)

With the cultural priorities issue it sounds as if you're talking about what use to be called "the poverty cycle." People are poor because they've never learned to be any other way.

I had intended to include inadequate education under "nonexistent mechanisms for upward mobility," but you're probably right in making it a separate category. :)

With the cultural priorities issue it sounds as if you're talking about what use to be called "the poverty cycle." People are poor because they've never learned to be any other way.

Exactly, and this was mentioned in the first post. Someone here already mentioned the old fable about taking a rich mans money and giving it to a poor man. Sooner or later, the rich man will be rich again and the poor man will be poor again. The point is, the poor man never learned how not to be poor, where the rich man did. Can the problem be as simple as education? I think poor education is a contributing factor to the cycle of poverty and that todays public education system is also a contributing factor. That doesn't mean that all public school children will be poor, though the children already in the cycle have less of a chance to escape the cycle. Education to end this cycle has to start in kindergarten and then be reiforeced in the following grades. It has to begine with the teaching of critical thinking skills and weighing cultural expectations against societal expectations.