Total Posts:119|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Wealth Inequality Gap and the Cause

ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Now, I think that we've all seen the graphics showing the growing wealth inequality gap that we've been experiencing, and it's true, that is unjust. With lots of negative externalities, like slowed upwards mobility, slowed spending, and increased class divisions, it's something that absolutely should be addressed. However, I think a lot of people are looking at it the wrong way.

You have people who are saying that this is a failure in capitalism and that it should be solved by increasing taxes on the wealthy and expanding the social safety net. However, that's just inefficient. That's adding government intervention when government intervention is the problem in the first place. Let me elaborate:

The wealthy are only able to become so wealthy because of government, be it through regulations, patents, corporate income tax, etc. All of these provide extra barriers to entry that wouldn't otherwise be there, and it keeps the large businesses from being challenged at a competitive level. If you remove the government involvement here, very few people would be able to get ultra wealthy, as there would be more competition to take away those economic profits, and those that do would be serving the people effectively by offering the goods at a low price and high quality that competitors couldn't beat. The best way to solve the wealth inequality gap is simply by removing government involvement and making entrepreneurship easy.

Now, many would argue that those regulations are necessary. That they are there for "consumer protection." I think that's ridiculous. It's not consumer protection to lower consumer choice, lower competition in the markets, and in doing so, increase the power of businesses. That's just corporatist. The only regulations that would truly offer consumer protection are the ones that would increase the quality and quantity of information so consumers could make better decisions about where to buy. After that, the best consumer protection is allowing the consumers to decide which firms stay in business.

Capitalism and markets aren't the problem. Government not allowing the markets to be free is the problem.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
InVinoVeritas
Posts: 59
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/4/2014 2:46:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
This is sort of related to the issue of patents. I huge reason that involvement in the tech industry has gotten a good number of people so much bling-bling is the ability to go to a patent office and create artificial monopolies over the things they develop and produce.

I'm not sure how this could be fixed, though. Some of the government regulations that bar market entry/competition are the same ones that promote general economic and social progress.
miketheman1200
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/5/2014 8:34:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The government requiring ridiculous licenses and fees causes poor entrepreneurs to be unable to compete and so the companies that successful and the people who are rich are protected from competition and remain rich while the poor are suppressed.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.
miketheman1200
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 12:55:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Equal in the economic realm does not mean "good" or "right.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 2:46:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 12:55:08 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Equal in the economic realm does not mean "good" or "right.
Never said it does, but you just did. It it is toward "right", and "good" as in "better" definitely. And not in economic, but in capitalism. And if not "good" or "right" then why talk about "equality" at all? Isn't "equal" supposed to be, in capitalism, about people having wealth and resources available to them in the same range, unlike present rich and poor? So that there's no rich nor poor, just "equal".
If you talk about equality then you talk about what is good and what is right. That a minority hoards riches because it is enabled by an idiotic system and idiotic values, and most others suffer because of it is not good and is not right.
miketheman1200
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/7/2014 5:55:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 2:46:35 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 12:55:08 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Equal in the economic realm does not mean "good" or "right.
Never said it does, but you just did. It it is toward "right", and "good" as in "better" definitely. And not in economic, but in capitalism. And if not "good" or "right" then why talk about "equality" at all? Isn't "equal" supposed to be, in capitalism, about people having wealth and resources available to them in the same range, unlike present rich and poor? So that there's no rich nor poor, just "equal".
If you talk about equality then you talk about what is good and what is right. That a minority hoards riches because it is enabled by an idiotic system and idiotic values, and most others suffer because of it is not good and is not right.

No, Capitalism is not about equality at all. Capitalism increases the standard of living of all through technological innovation achieved with profit incentives. I hate to break this to you but the free market has brought more people out of poverty in the last 100 years than the government has since its conception.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/10/2014 6:58:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/7/2014 5:55:01 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 2:46:35 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 12:55:08 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Equal in the economic realm does not mean "good" or "right.
Never said it does, but you just did. It it is toward "right", and "good" as in "better" definitely. And not in economic, but in capitalism. And if not "good" or "right" then why talk about "equality" at all? Isn't "equal" supposed to be, in capitalism, about people having wealth and resources available to them in the same range, unlike present rich and poor? So that there's no rich nor poor, just "equal".
If you talk about equality then you talk about what is good and what is right. That a minority hoards riches because it is enabled by an idiotic system and idiotic values, and most others suffer because of it is not good and is not right.

No, Capitalism is not about equality at all. Capitalism increases the standard of living of all through technological innovation achieved with profit incentives. I hate to break this to you but the free market has brought more people out of poverty in the last 100 years than the government has since its conception.
I know it is not about equality. Capitalism is slavery, under the illusion of freedom.
If you base your life around capitalism and its accompanying values, then you're boxed in, bars in every direction - you're enslaved to its rules and ways, you are a slave. You are a slave, and you don't even know it. I may live in the same world you do, but I see the box. I see what it does to people, to humanity, and I don't like it, no sane and aware enough person would.

Capitalism does not increase the standard of living through anything, it only limits and keeps it back. You are basing your views on completely wrong values. That you don't see what is wrong with what you are saying shows how undeveloped and barred your mind is. Do you like living in a box? How about you open your mind to actual reality, that things could and can be so much better? If only enough saw our world, us, as it really is. But that of course would require some incentive, to start thinking in the right direction, openness of mind would follow soon after. (Very many contributing factors to not having an open mind.)

Talk about increased standard of living with those who are "poor" because they don't have enough money to live at least decently. While there is plenty for them and everyone, just as there are plenty of resources that are as well wasted in such quantities. And resources being wasted is also one effect of capitalism, or rather that capitalism makes it so much worse than it would otherwise.

I was never talking about free markets.
Governments are the same as corporations. Doesn't matter what you call a bunch of greedy morons, they're greedy morons just the same.

In the last 100 years capitalism has brought most of humanity into a stronger poverty than ever before. Poverty can only exist in a capitalist system. Fact of reality, assuming your vision ain't barred (mine ain't, I know yours is).
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.


Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:08:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
First define what you regard as poor.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 3:14:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
As well, it is the fault of the game, mostly, perhaps wasn't at one point in the past but definitely is now. Most of the ones who play it now aren't even aware of the game; they were raised within the system and see and know only the system. How can someone be to blame for something the person doesn't understand or realize?
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 8:44:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:08:19 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
First define what you regard as poor.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Poor: a: Having less assets than needed to live.
b: lacking material possessions
Before money, people farmed and hunted for food. The people who had bad land couldn't farm a lot... They were poor. Only a radical with extreme confirmation bias believes you need money to be poor.

The game isn't the problem. Just the teams, and maybe the coaches and referees. Here is an examples of nations without Capitalism... North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam... List of Capitalist nations... South Korea, Japan, UK, France, Germany. Capitalism has quite literally the best track record for having successful economy's and the lowest poverty rates.

Being homeless in the United States is still better then living in most African nations. And being poor is better than living in North Korea.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 8:52:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 3:14:57 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
As well, it is the fault of the game, mostly, perhaps wasn't at one point in the past but definitely is now. Most of the ones who play it now aren't even aware of the game; they were raised within the system and see and know only the system. How can someone be to blame for something the person doesn't understand or realize?

The only defining feature that changed anything was the Fed's attempt to make loans for homes easier to get, causing a crash. That's not Capitalism's fault... That's the Fed's fault. The fault of the referees, not the game.

The game hasn't changed. Capitalism is still successful, as seen by it's massive bounce back. Remember the Great Depression? It lasted a decade, and Capitalism kept on going straight on through like it never happened. Now unless you believe this is anywhere near as bad of the Great depression, you have little ground to stand.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Juris
Posts: 109
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:01:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The reality is that there is really no such thing as free market. Corporations don't have an absolute freedom in the market, they are still subject to certain government regulations that would ensure protection to the consumers.

Contrary to what you are saying, government intervention does not make rich more richer thus resulting to wide gap of inequality. Look at the antitrust laws. Without such law, big business would take advantage of the small ones which consequently lead to a monopoly. And monopoly, of course, is not a good thing as there is no competition.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 10:13:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 10:01:26 AM, Juris wrote:
The reality is that there is really no such thing as free market. Corporations don't have an absolute freedom in the market, they are still subject to certain government regulations that would ensure protection to the consumers.


Being free doesn't mean you have no regulations. Even free people need laws and regulations.

Contrary to what you are saying, government intervention does not make rich more richer thus resulting to wide gap of inequality. Look at the antitrust laws. Without such law, big business would take advantage of the small ones which consequently lead to a monopoly. And monopoly, of course, is not a good thing as there is no competition.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 12:00:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Now, I think that we've all seen the graphics showing the growing wealth inequality gap that we've been experiencing, and it's true, that is unjust. With lots of negative externalities, like slowed upwards mobility, slowed spending, and increased class divisions, it's something that absolutely should be addressed. However, I think a lot of people are looking at it the wrong way.

You have people who are saying that this is a failure in capitalism and that it should be solved by increasing taxes on the wealthy and expanding the social safety net. However, that's just inefficient. That's adding government intervention when government intervention is the problem in the first place. Let me elaborate:

The wealthy are only able to become so wealthy because of government, be it through regulations,

What about anti-trust regulation?

patents,

Without patents, there would be no incentive to innovate.

corporate income tax,

These affect all corporations. They do not erect barriers to entry for new entrants that established players do not themselves have. More than likely, they actually level the playing field, as new entrants typically do not make profits in their first few years, meaning they wouldn't pay any corporate tax, whereas established players would pay the full rate.

etc. All of these provide extra barriers to entry that wouldn't otherwise be there, and it keeps the large businesses from being challenged at a competitive level. If you remove the government involvement here, very few people would be able to get ultra wealthy, as there would be more competition to take away those economic profits, and those that do would be serving the people effectively by offering the goods at a low price and high quality that competitors couldn't beat. The best way to solve the wealth inequality gap is simply by removing government involvement and making entrepreneurship easy.

Now, many would argue that those regulations are necessary. That they are there for "consumer protection." I think that's ridiculous. It's not consumer protection to lower consumer choice, lower competition in the markets, and in doing so, increase the power of businesses. That's just corporatist. The only regulations that would truly offer consumer protection are the ones that would increase the quality and quantity of information so consumers could make better decisions about where to buy. After that, the best consumer protection is allowing the consumers to decide which firms stay in business.

Capitalism and markets aren't the problem. Government not allowing the markets to be free is the problem.

I think we established in the other thread that government regulation is necessary, and that government regulation is the only thing preventing monopolies from forming. Monopolies are the root causes of creating barriers to entry, and government regulation is the only way to destroy these specific barriers.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
miketheman1200
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 4:20:44 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/10/2014 6:58:19 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 5:55:01 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 2:46:35 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 12:55:08 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Equal in the economic realm does not mean "good" or "right.
Never said it does, but you just did. It it is toward "right", and "good" as in "better" definitely. And not in economic, but in capitalism. And if not "good" or "right" then why talk about "equality" at all? Isn't "equal" supposed to be, in capitalism, about people having wealth and resources available to them in the same range, unlike present rich and poor? So that there's no rich nor poor, just "equal".
If you talk about equality then you talk about what is good and what is right. That a minority hoards riches because it is enabled by an idiotic system and idiotic values, and most others suffer because of it is not good and is not right.

No, Capitalism is not about equality at all. Capitalism increases the standard of living of all through technological innovation achieved with profit incentives. I hate to break this to you but the free market has brought more people out of poverty in the last 100 years than the government has since its conception.
I know it is not about equality. Capitalism is slavery, under the illusion of freedom.
If you base your life around capitalism and its accompanying values, then you're boxed in, bars in every direction - you're enslaved to its rules and ways, you are a slave. You are a slave, and you don't even know it. I may live in the same world you do, but I see the box. I see what it does to people, to humanity, and I don't like it, no sane and aware enough person would.

Capitalism does not increase the standard of living through anything, it only limits and keeps it back. You are basing your views on completely wrong values. That you don't see what is wrong with what you are saying shows how undeveloped and barred your mind is. Do you like living in a box? How about you open your mind to actual reality, that things could and can be so much better? If only enough saw our world, us, as it really is. But that of course would require some incentive, to start thinking in the right direction, openness of mind would follow soon after. (Very many contributing factors to not having an open mind.)

Talk about increased standard of living with those who are "poor" because they don't have enough money to live at least decently. While there is plenty for them and everyone, just as there are plenty of resources that are as well wasted in such quantities. And resources being wasted is also one effect of capitalism, or rather that capitalism makes it so much worse than it would otherwise.

I was never talking about free markets.
Governments are the same as corporations. Doesn't matter what you call a bunch of greedy morons, they're greedy morons just the same.

In the last 100 years capitalism has brought most of humanity into a stronger poverty than ever before. Poverty can only exist in a capitalist system. Fact of reality, assuming your vision ain't barred (mine ain't, I know yours is).

If you refuse the assertion that the free market (the market as free as it has been allowed to operate) has brought millions of people out of poverty, you are refusing reality. And poverty exists in every economic system that has ever existed. It's interesting that in that entire essay you don't make one actual argument based on evidence. You just spit out hateful feelings toward the free market ideology. If you really need me to I can cite the information that proves that the standard of living has increased for the poor but I feel this should be obvious. The poor in America today have about the same living standard as the middle class Americans of the 1970's, and they on average have more living space and equal commodities as the middle class European. Even china recognizes the benefits of opening its markets as it has.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:33:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 4:20:44 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:58:19 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 5:55:01 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 2:46:35 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 12:55:08 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Equal in the economic realm does not mean "good" or "right.
Never said it does, but you just did. It it is toward "right", and "good" as in "better" definitely. And not in economic, but in capitalism. And if not "good" or "right" then why talk about "equality" at all? Isn't "equal" supposed to be, in capitalism, about people having wealth and resources available to them in the same range, unlike present rich and poor? So that there's no rich nor poor, just "equal".
If you talk about equality then you talk about what is good and what is right. That a minority hoards riches because it is enabled by an idiotic system and idiotic values, and most others suffer because of it is not good and is not right.

No, Capitalism is not about equality at all. Capitalism increases the standard of living of all through technological innovation achieved with profit incentives. I hate to break this to you but the free market has brought more people out of poverty in the last 100 years than the government has since its conception.
I know it is not about equality. Capitalism is slavery, under the illusion of freedom.
If you base your life around capitalism and its accompanying values, then you're boxed in, bars in every direction - you're enslaved to its rules and ways, you are a slave. You are a slave, and you don't even know it. I may live in the same world you do, but I see the box. I see what it does to people, to humanity, and I don't like it, no sane and aware enough person would.

Capitalism does not increase the standard of living through anything, it only limits and keeps it back. You are basing your views on completely wrong values. That you don't see what is wrong with what you are saying shows how undeveloped and barred your mind is. Do you like living in a box? How about you open your mind to actual reality, that things could and can be so much better? If only enough saw our world, us, as it really is. But that of course would require some incentive, to start thinking in the right direction, openness of mind would follow soon after. (Very many contributing factors to not having an open mind.)

Talk about increased standard of living with those who are "poor" because they don't have enough money to live at least decently. While there is plenty for them and everyone, just as there are plenty of resources that are as well wasted in such quantities. And resources being wasted is also one effect of capitalism, or rather that capitalism makes it so much worse than it would otherwise.

I was never talking about free markets.
Governments are the same as corporations. Doesn't matter what you call a bunch of greedy morons, they're greedy morons just the same.

In the last 100 years capitalism has brought most of humanity into a stronger poverty than ever before. Poverty can only exist in a capitalist system. Fact of reality, assuming your vision ain't barred (mine ain't, I know yours is).


If you refuse the assertion that the free market (the market as free as it has been allowed to operate) has brought millions of people out of poverty, you are refusing reality.
Money and its effect is what made them poor in the first place. If you deny this you deny reality.
Human progress is dependent on resources, not money. Money is not a resource. There were enough resources then and there are now. There not just is no need for money but it is very harmful.
And poverty exists in every economic system that has ever existed. It's interesting that in that entire essay you don't make one actual argument based on evidence.
And you make your claims based on partial evidence. Evidence that only regards one side of many. My claims have evidence (observation of what is and what is claimed to be true), but that evidence requires objective logic to make the right conclusions (what evidence doesn't?), while your claims are based on flawed evidence and flawed logic (your logic itself is based on flawed evidence, aka biased and such).
You just spit out hateful feelings toward the free market ideology.
Okay... I have never said anything about free markets. I am talking about money/capitalism.
If you really need me to I can cite the information that proves that the standard of living has increased for the poor but I feel this should be obvious. The poor in America today have about the same living standard as the middle class Americans of the 1970's, and they on average have more living space and equal commodities as the middle class European. Even china recognizes the benefits of opening its markets as it has.
Standard of living has increased? It has not, it has remained the same if not gotten worse. You do not know what you are talking about. Money does not determine the standard of living, the resources and services available do. And those resources and services are not determined/made by money, people make them and people provide them. Money does nothing on its own, it is used for nothing that keeps someone alive or helps in any way. All that we have is done by people using resources.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:33:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:52:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:14:57 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
As well, it is the fault of the game, mostly, perhaps wasn't at one point in the past but definitely is now. Most of the ones who play it now aren't even aware of the game; they were raised within the system and see and know only the system. How can someone be to blame for something the person doesn't understand or realize?

The only defining feature that changed anything was the Fed's attempt to make loans for homes easier to get, causing a crash. That's not Capitalism's fault... That's the Fed's fault. The fault of the referees, not the game.
Loans can only exist in capitalist system. The Fed's operated within and with a vision obscured by the boundaries of capitalism. Did/do they know what capitalism is, what it means, and does, to humanity? Of course not. It wasn't their fault because they did and do not know, they grew up with capitalist values, it's all they know. As such very much the fault of capitalism, or would you like to go all the way back to the origin of capitalism, to those who began it long long ago and blame them? They're dead, capitalism is not.
The game is the problem, as it doesn't fit with life which itself is not a game, yet tries to control it.
The game hasn't changed. Capitalism is still successful, as seen by it's massive bounce back. Remember the Great Depression? It lasted a decade, and Capitalism kept on going straight on through like it never happened. Now unless you believe this is anywhere near as bad of the Great depression, you have little ground to stand.
Capitalism is successful in damaging humanity, and as well in making very clear how bad it is.
The great depression was caused by capitalism and by values it had already insinuated.
Your ground is an illusion while mine, being little as it is, is not.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:34:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 8:44:16 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:08:19 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
First define what you regard as poor.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.
Poor: a: Having less assets than needed to live.
What is an asset?
b: lacking material possessions
What kind of material possessions and why are they necessary?
Before money, people farmed and hunted for food. The people who had bad land couldn't farm a lot... They were poor. Only a radical with extreme confirmation bias believes you need money to be poor.
Right now people hunt and mostly farm. Hunting alone does not provide enough, but farming does and even more than needed. But so someone can have that what's needed it must first be paid for, doesn't matter that it is produced for consumption in the first place. You don't pay for it or you don't pay enough, then you don't get it. An average person, a worker who has job, barely comes by, it's so bad that some things the person needs he/she can not provide for self, because the person is not paid enough, and it doesn't matter that the job the person does has to be done, it doesn't matter there is enough and even more resources than meets the need.
My point is, right now there is far more than demands the need, yet people are "poor". So what the fvck is going on?? If there is enough resources for everyone, then why are there "poor" people?? This "poverty" we currently have is a direct consequence of capitalism.

In older times, before this nonsense, people hunted and farmed. If hunting didn't go well it just didn't go well, because the people didn't then and still don't control nature. If farming didn't go well then it didn't go well, they didn't have the techniques and methods we have now, they were far more subject to natures seasons and effects. If went bad then perhaps better next time, if not then time to move on to a next land, with better forests to hunt in, and better land. If in those times people had little resources at some point it was not being poor, it was simply the way of life. They had no way to get the extra they needed, there was no way and nowhere to get it from. They didn't have the possibilities we have now.
Right now we have an excess of everything when instead of going straight for consumption one has to first get a "permission". It was made for consumption, so why the fvck does one have to give someone else some made up thing (money - the permission) to use it? And if one doesn't have enough money then no permission to use it, doesn't matter it is available, doesn't matter there's far more than enough, doesn't matter it was made for consumption.
Capitalism is irrational, idiotic. It's an unnecessary factor in the equation of "humanity". It keeps efficiency down and progress back, while instilling idiotic values.

Only a radical with extreme confirmation bias believes money isn't the cause of poverty.

A person can be not poor by having only food, and nothing else, so... or even having too little food. That you regard some as poor does not necessarily make them so.

Poverty and being poor is not just about having little or not enough, what determines one as "poor" are the reasons and causes why there's little or not enough.
The game isn't the problem. Just the teams, and maybe the coaches and referees. Here is an examples of nations without Capitalism... North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam... List of Capitalist nations... South Korea, Japan, UK, France, Germany. Capitalism has quite literally the best track record for having successful economy's and the lowest poverty rates.
The game is the problem. Life itself is not a game, but capitalism is as good as one.

North Korea is capitalist.
China is capitalist.
Cuba is capitalist.
Laos is capitalist.
Vietnam is capitalist.
Clear enough for you?
Being homeless in the United States is still better then living in most African nations. And being poor is better than living in North Korea.
Africa has other problems aside money that makes their conditions as bad as they are. There the biggest issue is not money.
North Korea is a dictatorship/authoritarian country of a bad kind. There the biggest problem is not money.
So, if one was homeless in Africa or poor in North Korea, compared to US, of course they would be better in US!!! That you would even give such ignorant, downright stupid, examples...

With your response you have confirmed your own bias. You are biased. You logic is weak, as you've demonstrated. You don't see the world clearly, nor anywhere near broadly enough.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 6:58:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:34:07 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:44:16 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:08:19 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
First define what you regard as poor.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.
Poor: a: Having less assets than needed to live.
What is an asset?
b: lacking material possessions
What kind of material possessions and why are they necessary?

You are asking stupid questions now. Any and all possessions needed to live.

Before money, people farmed and hunted for food. The people who had bad land couldn't farm a lot... They were poor. Only a radical with extreme confirmation bias believes you need money to be poor.
Right now people hunt and mostly farm. Hunting alone does not provide enough, but farming does and even more than needed. But so someone can have that what's needed it must first be paid for, doesn't matter that it is produced for consumption in the first place. You don't pay for it or you don't pay enough, then you don't get it. An average person, a worker who has job, barely comes by, it's so bad that some things the person needs he/she can not provide for self, because the person is not paid enough, and it doesn't matter that the job the person does has to be done, it doesn't matter there is enough and even more resources than meets the need.
My point is, right now there is far more than demands the need, yet people are "poor". So what the fvck is going on?? If there is enough resources for everyone, then why are there "poor" people?? This "poverty" we currently have is a direct consequence of capitalism.

Farming and Hunting doesn't count as wealth anymore because food and crop isn't a currency anymore.

Your argument is fallacious... Just because money doesn't fix poverty doesn't mean it's causing it. Have you ever even been to North Korea? How about Cuba? They have Communism instead, and yet they are poor.


In older times, before this nonsense, people hunted and farmed. If hunting didn't go well it just didn't go well, because the people didn't then and still don't control nature. If farming didn't go well then it didn't go well, they didn't have the techniques and methods we have now, they were far more subject to natures seasons and effects.

And then they were poor because of it.

If went bad then perhaps better next time, if not then time to move on to a next land, with better forests to hunt in, and better land. If in those times people had little resources at some point it was not being poor, it was simply the way of life. They had no way to get the extra they needed, there was no way and nowhere to get it from. They didn't have the possibilities we have now.

If we didn't have money, farmers on bad land would still be poor. Poverty will always exist, even without money. So long as it's possible to not have enough to live.

Right now we have an excess of everything when instead of going straight for consumption one has to first get a "permission". It was made for consumption, so why the fvck does one have to give someone else some made up thing (money - the permission) to use it? And if one doesn't have enough money then no permission to use it, doesn't matter it is available, doesn't matter there's far more than enough, doesn't matter it was made for consumption.
Capitalism is irrational, idiotic. It's an unnecessary factor in the equation of "humanity". It keeps efficiency down and progress back, while instilling idiotic values.

Only a radical with extreme confirmation bias believes money isn't the cause of poverty.

A person can be not poor by having only food, and nothing else, so... or even having too little food. That you regard some as poor does not necessarily make them so.

Poverty and being poor is not just about having little or not enough, what determines one as "poor" are the reasons and causes why there's little or not enough.
The game isn't the problem. Just the teams, and maybe the coaches and referees. Here is an examples of nations without Capitalism... North Korea, China, Cuba, Laos, Vietnam... List of Capitalist nations... South Korea, Japan, UK, France, Germany. Capitalism has quite literally the best track record for having successful economy's and the lowest poverty rates.
The game is the problem. Life itself is not a game, but capitalism is as good as one.

North Korea is capitalist.
China is capitalist.
Cuba is capitalist.
Laos is capitalist.
Vietnam is capitalist.
Clear enough for you?
Being homeless in the United States is still better then living in most African nations. And being poor is better than living in North Korea.
Africa has other problems aside money that makes their conditions as bad as they are. There the biggest issue is not money.

BOOM. Money isn't the problem behind their poverty.

North Korea is a dictatorship/authoritarian country of a bad kind. There the biggest problem is not money.

BOOM. Money isn't the problem behind their poverty.

So, if one was homeless in Africa or poor in North Korea, compared to US, of course they would be better in US!!! That you would even give such ignorant, downright stupid, examples...

Poverty in the US = http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com...
Poverty in Africa = http://changecanhappen.files.wordpress.com...


With your response you have confirmed your own bias. You are biased. You logic is weak, as you've demonstrated. You don't see the world clearly, nor anywhere near broadly enough.

I'm challenging your stupidity to a debate now.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 7:03:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:33:37 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/12/2014 8:52:29 AM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/12/2014 3:14:57 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/11/2014 7:03:29 PM, donald.keller wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

1. Any and all economic structures, Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, enables people to be poor.
2. There will always be poor people, even without money.
3. This isn't the fault of the game, but of the players.
As well, it is the fault of the game, mostly, perhaps wasn't at one point in the past but definitely is now. Most of the ones who play it now aren't even aware of the game; they were raised within the system and see and know only the system. How can someone be to blame for something the person doesn't understand or realize?

The only defining feature that changed anything was the Fed's attempt to make loans for homes easier to get, causing a crash. That's not Capitalism's fault... That's the Fed's fault. The fault of the referees, not the game.
Loans can only exist in capitalist system. The Fed's operated within and with a vision obscured by the boundaries of capitalism. Did/do they know what capitalism is, what it means, and does, to humanity? Of course not. It wasn't their fault because they did and do not know, they grew up with capitalist values, it's all they know. As such very much the fault of capitalism, or would you like to go all the way back to the origin of capitalism, to those who began it long long ago and blame them? They're dead, capitalism is not.
A brain tells us that "money can cause some financial problems =/= money is the cause of all financial problems."

That specific part of our argument wasn't about Money causing poverty, but Capitalism causing problems. Stay on track.

The game is the problem, as it doesn't fit with life which itself is not a game, yet tries to control it.

And basic school of logic teaches people not to take an analogy too far.

The game hasn't changed. Capitalism is still successful, as seen by it's massive bounce back. Remember the Great Depression? It lasted a decade, and Capitalism kept on going straight on through like it never happened. Now unless you believe this is anywhere near as bad of the Great depression, you have little ground to stand.
Capitalism is successful in damaging humanity, and as well in making very clear how bad it is.
The great depression was caused by capitalism and by values it had already insinuated.
Your ground is an illusion while mine, being little as it is, is not.

Must we compare the financial and humanitarian success of Capitalist nations to none Capitalism nations?

We will continue this is a debate.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 7:07:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
North Korea is capitalist.
China is capitalist.
Cuba is capitalist.
Laos is capitalist.
Vietnam is capitalist.

Wait wait wait. Did you just? Those are Communist nations...Specifically THE 5 Communist states left. Not Capitalist.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Leanin_on_Slick
Posts: 62
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 7:38:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Now, I think that we've all seen the graphics showing the growing wealth inequality gap that we've been experiencing, and it's true, that is unjust. With lots of negative externalities, like slowed upwards mobility, slowed spending, and increased class divisions, it's something that absolutely should be addressed. However, I think a lot of people are looking at it the wrong way.

You have people who are saying that this is a failure in capitalism and that it should be solved by increasing taxes on the wealthy and expanding the social safety net. However, that's just inefficient. That's adding government intervention when government intervention is the problem in the first place. Let me elaborate:

The wealthy are only able to become so wealthy because of government, be it through regulations, patents, corporate income tax, etc. All of these provide extra barriers to entry that wouldn't otherwise be there, and it keeps the large businesses from being challenged at a competitive level. If you remove the government involvement here, very few people would be able to get ultra wealthy, as there would be more competition to take away those economic profits, and those that do would be serving the people effectively by offering the goods at a low price and high quality that competitors couldn't beat. The best way to solve the wealth inequality gap is simply by removing government involvement and making entrepreneurship easy.

Now, many would argue that those regulations are necessary. That they are there for "consumer protection." I think that's ridiculous. It's not consumer protection to lower consumer choice, lower competition in the markets, and in doing so, increase the power of businesses. That's just corporatist. The only regulations that would truly offer consumer protection are the ones that would increase the quality and quantity of information so consumers could make better decisions about where to buy. After that, the best consumer protection is allowing the consumers to decide which firms stay in business.

Capitalism and markets aren't the problem. Government not allowing the markets to be free is the problem.

The recent record high numbers in inequality, I would agrue have to do more with what sectors have 'recovered'. While the stock market has been propted up by easy money and low interest rates the housing sector has been much slower to recover. It's the upper-class that generally holds stocks (or the majority of them), this is why the wealthy have generally recovered what they lost in 2008. On the flip-side the majority of American's hold their greatest wealth in their homes, and with a slow housing recovering-not to mention low velocity of money and confindence- they are burdened the most.
miketheman1200
Posts: 49
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/12/2014 7:58:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 6:33:33 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/12/2014 4:20:44 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/10/2014 6:58:19 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 5:55:01 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/7/2014 2:46:35 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/7/2014 12:55:08 PM, miketheman1200 wrote:
At 1/6/2014 3:11:44 AM, nummi wrote:
At 1/4/2014 12:34:35 PM, ClassicRobert wrote:
Capitalism and markets aren't the problem.
Capitalism enables people to become poor. People can only be poor when money is in play. People can only have excess money they don't use for the betterment of others in capitalism.
The current state of things will never change with capitalism influencing humanity. If it somehow did change, if things got "equal", then that would be almost as good as no capitalism anyway.

Capitalism is the problem. Saying otherwise is ignoring, avoiding, and denying the problem.

Equal in the economic realm does not mean "good" or "right.
Never said it does, but you just did. It it is toward "right", and "good" as in "better" definitely. And not in economic, but in capitalism. And if not "good" or "right" then why talk about "equality" at all? Isn't "equal" supposed to be, in capitalism, about people having wealth and resources available to them in the same range, unlike present rich and poor? So that there's no rich nor poor, just "equal".
If you talk about equality then you talk about what is good and what is right. That a minority hoards riches because it is enabled by an idiotic system and idiotic values, and most others suffer because of it is not good and is not right.

No, Capitalism is not about equality at all. Capitalism increases the standard of living of all through technological innovation achieved with profit incentives. I hate to break this to you but the free market has brought more people out of poverty in the last 100 years than the government has since its conception.
I know it is not about equality. Capitalism is slavery, under the illusion of freedom.
If you base your life around capitalism and its accompanying values, then you're boxed in, bars in every direction - you're enslaved to its rules and ways, you are a slave. You are a slave, and you don't even know it. I may live in the same world you do, but I see the box. I see what it does to people, to humanity, and I don't like it, no sane and aware enough person would.

Capitalism does not increase the standard of living through anything, it only limits and keeps it back. You are basing your views on completely wrong values. That you don't see what is wrong with what you are saying shows how undeveloped and barred your mind is. Do you like living in a box? How about you open your mind to actual reality, that things could and can be so much better? If only enough saw our world, us, as it really is. But that of course would require some incentive, to start thinking in the right direction, openness of mind would follow soon after. (Very many contributing factors to not having an open mind.)

Talk about increased standard of living with those who are "poor" because they don't have enough money to live at least decently. While there is plenty for them and everyone, just as there are plenty of resources that are as well wasted in such quantities. And resources being wasted is also one effect of capitalism, or rather that capitalism makes it so much worse than it would otherwise.

I was never talking about free markets.
Governments are the same as corporations. Doesn't matter what you call a bunch of greedy morons, they're greedy morons just the same.

In the last 100 years capitalism has brought most of humanity into a stronger poverty than ever before. Poverty can only exist in a capitalist system. Fact of reality, assuming your vision ain't barred (mine ain't, I know yours is).


If you refuse the assertion that the free market (the market as free as it has been allowed to operate) has brought millions of people out of poverty, you are refusing reality.
Money and its effect is what made them poor in the first place. If you deny this you deny reality.
Human progress is dependent on resources, not money. Money is not a resource. There were enough resources then and there are now. There not just is no need for money but it is very harmful.
And poverty exists in every economic system that has ever existed. It's interesting that in that entire essay you don't make one actual argument based on evidence.
And you make your claims based on partial evidence. Evidence that only regards one side of many. My claims have evidence (observation of what is and what is claimed to be true), but that evidence requires objective logic to make the right conclusions (what evidence doesn't?), while your claims are based on flawed evidence and flawed logic (your logic itself is based on flawed evidence, aka biased and such).
You just spit out hateful feelings toward the free market ideology.
Okay... I have never said anything about free markets. I am talking about money/capitalism.
If you really need me to I can cite the information that proves that the standard of living has increased for the poor but I feel this should be obvious. The poor in America today have about the same living standard as the middle class Americans of the 1970's, and they on average have more living space and equal commodities as the middle class European. Even china recognizes the benefits of opening its markets as it has.
Standard of living has increased? It has not, it has remained the same if not gotten worse. You do not know what you are talking about. Money does not determine the standard of living, the resources and services available do. And those resources and services are not determined/made by money, people make them and people provide them. Money does nothing on its own, it is used for nothing that keeps someone alive or helps in any way. All that we have is done by people using resources.

"Standard of living has increased? It has not"

rigghtt:

http://www.heritage.org...

And are you advocating a resource based economy? Otherwise you are criticizing a system which has empirical evidence of being successful while offering no alternative. If you are butthurt that poor people will always exist, you need to get over it real fast because the only way you can help them is by being productive yourself.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 1:51:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/12/2014 7:07:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
North Korea is capitalist.
China is capitalist.
Cuba is capitalist.
Laos is capitalist.
Vietnam is capitalist.

Wait wait wait. Did you just? Those are Communist nations...Specifically THE 5 Communist states left. Not Capitalist.
You obviously have no idea what communism is.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 1:51:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Poor: a: Having less assets than needed to live.
What is an asset?
b: lacking material possessions
What kind of material possessions and why are they necessary?
You are asking stupid questions now. Any and all possessions needed to live.
These are very relevant questions, as obviously your perception of poverty is different from mine. And as well what makes one poor.

Farming and Hunting doesn't count as wealth anymore because food and crop isn't a currency anymore.
Oh my... In that case wealth is a very bad thing.
The way you regard poverty you must as well regard wealth, if you don't you're acting hypocritically. Wealth would be the possession of things needed for good life, as opposed to poverty - the lack of possessions, as you put it.
With this wealth thing you are contradicting yourself.
Your argument is fallacious... Just because money doesn't fix poverty doesn't mean it's causing it. Have you ever even been to North Korea? How about Cuba? They have Communism instead, and yet they are poor.
I've never said it is the only thing that causes it. But right now capitalism is the main cause. That which would be needed to remove capitalism would as well remove all the other factors.
The general population is very stupid, they as well lack necessary education, they are raised since birth onward with wrong values, and many more.

They don't have communism, if they did then why do they have currency? I'm getting the feeling you do not know what communism is.
In older times, before this nonsense, people hunted and farmed. If hunting didn't go well it just didn't go well, because the people didn't then and still don't control nature. If farming didn't go well then it didn't go well, they didn't have the techniques and methods we have now, they were far more subject to natures seasons and effects.
And then they were poor because of it.
If you could ask them whether they thought themselves poor I highly doubt a positive answer.
They were not poor. You are basing poverty on present values of capitalism, aside other inferior values you live by - you don't see things as they are, would be, and how they were.

If went bad then perhaps better next time, if not then time to move on to a next land, with better forests to hunt in, and better land. If in those times people had little resources at some point it was not being poor, it was simply the way of life. They had no way to get the extra they needed, there was no way and nowhere to get it from. They didn't have the possibilities we have now.
And how about the rest I included? You as well one of those who basically picks out words from a sentence to nag on, ignoring the whole point? Seems so.
If we didn't have money, farmers on bad land would still be poor. Poverty will always exist, even without money. So long as it's possible to not have enough to live.
If we didn't have money, farmers on bad land would get resources needed to survive from elsewhere.
You have a very messed up sense of poverty. It already is possible to always have enough, capitalism and the values it comes with keeps it from being made real.
I said something reasons and causes why "poor", you should think heavily on that.

Africa has other problems aside money that makes their conditions as bad as they are. There the biggest issue is not money.
BOOM. Money isn't the problem behind their poverty.
Holy crap, you are so stupid. Are you comprehending anything at all?
Are you truly so naive to think that if in some few countries capitalism is not the biggest issue it is automatically the same everywhere else as well? What an imbecile...

North Korea is a dictatorship/authoritarian country of a bad kind. There the biggest problem is not money.
BOOM. Money isn't the problem behind their poverty.
Holy crap, you are so stupid. Are you comprehending anything at all?
Are you truly so naive to think that if in some few countries capitalism is not the biggest issue it is automatically the same everywhere else as well? What an imbecile...

So, if one was homeless in Africa or poor in North Korea, compared to US, of course they would be better in US!!! That you would even give such ignorant, downright stupid, examples...

Poverty in the US = http://ivarfjeld.files.wordpress.com...
Poverty in Africa = http://changecanhappen.files.wordpress.com...
Africa has other problems aside money that makes their conditions as bad as they are. There the biggest issue is not money.
Read it again and think extremely hard on it. Perhaps you'll get it this time.

Wow... You are the stupidest person I've ever dealt with, as far as I can remember. That's one huge achievement considering there are a number of religious nutjobs I've encountered.
With your response you have confirmed your own bias. You are biased. You logic is weak, as you've demonstrated. You don't see the world clearly, nor anywhere near broadly enough.
I'm challenging your stupidity to a debate now.
Stupidity? Explain, in detail, how and why what I said is stupid. And do not fvcking base that explanation on capitalist values!!! Would be nice to get objective logic for once.

Go ahead, challenge me as much as you want, see if I care.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 1:51:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
A brain tells us that "money can cause some financial problems =/= money is the cause of all financial problems."
Really?????? Thanks for the laugh...
What is finance? It has everything to do with money, in fact finance couldn't exist without money.
Very nice contradiction you got there.

That specific part of our argument wasn't about Money causing poverty, but Capitalism causing problems. Stay on track.
Money and capitalism are in the same pot. They go together, they cannot be separate.
It was about money as well about capitalism.

The game is the problem, as it doesn't fit with life which itself is not a game, yet tries to control it.
And basic school of logic teaches people not to take an analogy too far.
So, then why did you respond to this? (A hint, it wasn't an analogy. You don't seem to know what analogy is. I indicated a dissimilarity, not similarity.)
Basic school? Talk about things you've actually been to, and know about. (Actually, it's rather pathetic what they teach in school... But you of course noticed nothing wrong with anything, right?)

The game hasn't changed. Capitalism is still successful, as seen by it's massive bounce back. Remember the Great Depression? It lasted a decade, and Capitalism kept on going straight on through like it never happened. Now unless you believe this is anywhere near as bad of the Great depression, you have little ground to stand.
Capitalism is successful in damaging humanity, and as well in making very clear how bad it is.
The great depression was caused by capitalism and by values it had already insinuated.
Your ground is an illusion while mine, being little as it is, is not.
Must we compare the financial and humanitarian success of Capitalist nations to none Capitalism nations?
There are no non-capitalist nations. The countries you listed are all capitalist, they all have currency, they all use it - aka capitalism.
And you brought them in, not I.
We will continue this is a debate.
Perhaps you will but I have no interest. I already see/know it would be of no avail. I've talked with people having a similar bias/mentality as yours before, the result was similar to the one here. Why waste my time? You'll never see things as they are, even if I provide a general direction, without you noticing the true effect on yourself and those close to you.
You live by rules set upon your mind, and those are not set by you (indoctrinated/brainwashed, basically). I in comparison set my own rules, had the same brainwashing methods as you but broke free on my own. I suppose I'm far more keen on noticing details.
nummi
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 2:10:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"Standard of living has increased? It has not"

rigghtt:

http://www.heritage.org...
What is standard of living? What determines standard of living?

And are you advocating a resource based economy?
I'm not advocating anything really. Other than what would be most efficient and best for humanity.
Otherwise you are criticizing a system which has empirical evidence of being successful while offering no alternative.
An alternative has never even been tried, if you actually cared to look at our history objectively. That "empirical evidence" is in truth no evidence. They claim this, capitalism, is the best possible. What are they basing their claims on? They have nothing to compare with, an alternative economy has never been tried, yet they state it all as if in comparison with an alternative!
I suppose they're too greedy and stupid to let go all their excessive and redundant "wealth".

Has an alternative been tried? Just curious to know how you'd answer.
If you are butthurt that poor people will always exist, you need to get over it real fast because the only way you can help them is by being productive yourself.
It seems rather that you are butthurt.
I just stated the cause why people are still poor when in reality it is very much possible to have as good as no poor people.

Being productive? The productive you have in mind has nothing to do with this issue.
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2014 3:47:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/13/2014 1:51:39 PM, nummi wrote:
At 1/12/2014 7:07:28 PM, donald.keller wrote:
North Korea is capitalist.
China is capitalist.
Cuba is capitalist.
Laos is capitalist.
Vietnam is capitalist.

Wait wait wait. Did you just? Those are Communist nations...Specifically THE 5 Communist states left. Not Capitalist.
You obviously have no idea what communism is.

You obviously don't.
http://geography.about.com...

They aren't capitalist. Except for China, who has been toying around with a proto-Capitalism.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --