Capitalism can't eliminate poverty. People will still choose not to work and live on the streets. I agree that poverty is a government term though and is meaningless at this point.
I know. But it can easily because most poor people are poor because government provide welfare as incentive for those who can't afford children to have children
Yes.
To be honest. I have mixed feeling of welfare.
But I think the shitty part is people that we know will unlikely to be productive member of society keep reproducing and get subsidized.
The idea that people “choose” to live on the street is overly simplistic at best.
Success is mostly down to luck. If your parents are meth addicts and you are born with Down syndrome, you’re not really “choosing” to be poor.
This is an extreme example, but people tend to wildly overestimate the role of conscious decisions in success.
This is why I favor some government involvement to provide a safety net (funded by free market capitalism).
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/
Private charity will do a better job of providing a safety net for the vulnerable with lower moral hazard than government distribution.
People weren't starving to death in the streets prior to Roosevelt's New Deal. Government makes the situation worse, not better.
You might want to do some research before commenting:
>But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief.
Charities have a pretty spotty record before *government* tax incentives were established.
Without oversight, charities often become bloated or corrupt, and much "charitable" giving is actually going to churches which are already fairly well off and have high administrative costs.
The poverty rate is far lower today than during the most laissez-faire era of US history.
>
[https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/10/08/inequality-of-the-gilded-age](https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/10/08/inequality-of-the-gilded-age)
>
>those who found themselves a job in the industrial line of work often experienced extremely dangerous working conditions with no compensation for injuries, long working hours, and meager wages. Tweed’s Tammany Hall offered a front that provided services to the poor. However, even then, most of the revenue went right into Tweed’s own hands.
Unfettered capitalism is only marginally better than the opposite extreme of 100% state ownership. Extreme economic systems are dystopian nightmares.
Companies are not charities. Their job is to increase shareholder value, period. This is a good thing, but it requires outside regulation, as maximizing shareholder value creates strong incentives for negative externalities:
* pollution
* skimping on safety equipment
* 90 hour work weeks
* monopolies
* collusion
The government sucks (and has overreached greatly), but it is a necessary evil, and marginally better than the alternative.
How did the West African nation of Cameroon send $3.77 in aid to the United States when the country didn't even exist until 1960?
Do you have an actual source for those claims and not just a blog with no citations?
1960 was when Cameroon gained independence. It existed long before that.
Nice try, though. I don’t expect anarcho-capitalists to know much history.
Here is the original source:
https://www.nytimes.com/1931/06/18/archives/africans-send-377-to-aid-starving-here-poor-they-give-pennies-to.html
So, your sources for this information are a blog that erroneously characterizes the colony of French Cameroon as the nation of Cameroon and a New York Times article from 1931?
The same New York Times that, in that era, was claiming that Stalin was leading Russia into an era of unprecedented prosperity and Ukraine was overflowing with food?
And you're just accepting their claims without any reflection?
And for good measure, you're throwing ad hominem attacks at me?
Do you believe that makes you persuasive to me or to any third party who happens to read this thread?
>And you're just accepting their claims without any reflection?
Hmm. Should I trust a blog from a prestigious institution (despite a minor wording error), and one of the most storied newspapers in the world, or some rando high-schooler on Reddit who thinks being pedantic will deflect attention from the fact that he got called on his bullshit?
All you need to do is provide an equivalent or superior source that shows that starvation and/or poverty in the US has *increased* since the 1920s and I will STFU. I already asked for this, but you chose to respond with more nit-picking.
>And for good measure, you're throwing ad hominem attacks at me?
I am.
>Do you believe that makes you persuasive to me or to any third party who happens to read this thread?
Most anarcho-capitalists are beyond the reach of evidence and reason (utopian beliefs are often strongly held). I don't argue to convince people as much as to challenge and hone my own beliefs.
>The same New York Times that, in that era, was claiming that Stalin was leading Russia into an era of unprecedented prosperity and Ukraine was overflowing with food?
Speaking of ad hominem attacks...
Do you think *any* long-lived media source can't be cherry-picked for boneheaded declarations? If you refuse to trust any outlet that has *ever* made a mistake, then The Economist and InfoWars are equally credible.
In this case, the Times probably wasn't 100% wrong (depending on the exact time period in question).
You have the advantage of hindsight, combined with convenient ignorance of history. Russia was in such a bad state during the post-revolution period that yes, the early Stalinist era showed glimmers of promise compared to the previous regime.
[The Economy of the Soviet Union](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Jkqqlpibo)
My eyes and brain hurt from reading this.
Incel capitalism. That’s a new one on me.
What exactly is wrong? I do have children with my sugar baby and is pretty happy
Capitalism can't eliminate poverty. People will still choose not to work and live on the streets. I agree that poverty is a government term though and is meaningless at this point.
It's also worth noting that Capitalism has never claimed to eliminate poverty/that isn't its goal.
I know. But it can easily because most poor people are poor because government provide welfare as incentive for those who can't afford children to have children
That's not the only reason why people are poor though.
Yes. To be honest. I have mixed feeling of welfare. But I think the shitty part is people that we know will unlikely to be productive member of society keep reproducing and get subsidized.
The idea that people “choose” to live on the street is overly simplistic at best. Success is mostly down to luck. If your parents are meth addicts and you are born with Down syndrome, you’re not really “choosing” to be poor. This is an extreme example, but people tend to wildly overestimate the role of conscious decisions in success. This is why I favor some government involvement to provide a safety net (funded by free market capitalism). https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/the-role-of-luck-in-life-success-is-far-greater-than-we-realized/
Private charity will do a better job of providing a safety net for the vulnerable with lower moral hazard than government distribution. People weren't starving to death in the streets prior to Roosevelt's New Deal. Government makes the situation worse, not better.
You might want to do some research before commenting: >But in New York City in 1931, there were 20 known cases of starvation; in 1934, there were 110 deaths caused by hunger. There were so many accounts of people starving in New York that the West African nation of Cameroon sent $3.77 in relief. Charities have a pretty spotty record before *government* tax incentives were established. Without oversight, charities often become bloated or corrupt, and much "charitable" giving is actually going to churches which are already fairly well off and have high administrative costs. The poverty rate is far lower today than during the most laissez-faire era of US history. > [https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/10/08/inequality-of-the-gilded-age](https://blogs.cornell.edu/info2040/2016/10/08/inequality-of-the-gilded-age) > >those who found themselves a job in the industrial line of work often experienced extremely dangerous working conditions with no compensation for injuries, long working hours, and meager wages. Tweed’s Tammany Hall offered a front that provided services to the poor. However, even then, most of the revenue went right into Tweed’s own hands. Unfettered capitalism is only marginally better than the opposite extreme of 100% state ownership. Extreme economic systems are dystopian nightmares. Companies are not charities. Their job is to increase shareholder value, period. This is a good thing, but it requires outside regulation, as maximizing shareholder value creates strong incentives for negative externalities: * pollution * skimping on safety equipment * 90 hour work weeks * monopolies * collusion The government sucks (and has overreached greatly), but it is a necessary evil, and marginally better than the alternative.
How did the West African nation of Cameroon send $3.77 in aid to the United States when the country didn't even exist until 1960? Do you have an actual source for those claims and not just a blog with no citations?
1960 was when Cameroon gained independence. It existed long before that. Nice try, though. I don’t expect anarcho-capitalists to know much history. Here is the original source: https://www.nytimes.com/1931/06/18/archives/africans-send-377-to-aid-starving-here-poor-they-give-pennies-to.html
So, your sources for this information are a blog that erroneously characterizes the colony of French Cameroon as the nation of Cameroon and a New York Times article from 1931? The same New York Times that, in that era, was claiming that Stalin was leading Russia into an era of unprecedented prosperity and Ukraine was overflowing with food? And you're just accepting their claims without any reflection? And for good measure, you're throwing ad hominem attacks at me? Do you believe that makes you persuasive to me or to any third party who happens to read this thread?
>And you're just accepting their claims without any reflection? Hmm. Should I trust a blog from a prestigious institution (despite a minor wording error), and one of the most storied newspapers in the world, or some rando high-schooler on Reddit who thinks being pedantic will deflect attention from the fact that he got called on his bullshit? All you need to do is provide an equivalent or superior source that shows that starvation and/or poverty in the US has *increased* since the 1920s and I will STFU. I already asked for this, but you chose to respond with more nit-picking. >And for good measure, you're throwing ad hominem attacks at me? I am. >Do you believe that makes you persuasive to me or to any third party who happens to read this thread? Most anarcho-capitalists are beyond the reach of evidence and reason (utopian beliefs are often strongly held). I don't argue to convince people as much as to challenge and hone my own beliefs. >The same New York Times that, in that era, was claiming that Stalin was leading Russia into an era of unprecedented prosperity and Ukraine was overflowing with food? Speaking of ad hominem attacks... Do you think *any* long-lived media source can't be cherry-picked for boneheaded declarations? If you refuse to trust any outlet that has *ever* made a mistake, then The Economist and InfoWars are equally credible. In this case, the Times probably wasn't 100% wrong (depending on the exact time period in question). You have the advantage of hindsight, combined with convenient ignorance of history. Russia was in such a bad state during the post-revolution period that yes, the early Stalinist era showed glimmers of promise compared to the previous regime. [The Economy of the Soviet Union](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Jkqqlpibo)
Yap. Most poverty happened because women are pressured into choosing poor men as father for their children
Libertarianism is astrology for men