Does Capitalism Truly Reduce Poverty and Increase Wealth for All?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aquamarine
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
98 replies · 23K views
As a quick aside, it seems very interesting that two economists, using different axioms (belief systems) take what seem to me to be identical data sets and reach diametrically opposite conclusions.

As an example: tax cuts vs. tax increases and their impact on economic growth.

During the Reagan Presidency the economy got better (i.e, unemployement declined, GDP increased) because taxes were lowered.
Or. During the Clinton Presidency the economy got better (same metrics)
during a period of tax increases - which reduced the deficit and made things improve.

I've seen presentations making both these points. Obviously both speakers have to be ignoring what really is going on. Or are promoting a political point of view in the guise of economic "reasoning". Or both.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Wishbone said:
Wrong, learn the definition to capitalism. it infringes on no rights whatsoever... Yay pretend economist trolls FTW! Stop posting. Prosperity and liberty go hand in hand with capitalism.

Not always. Capitalism has its own hierarchial and authoritarian institutions. It is not really free for the poor.
 
selfAdjoint said:
The practical situation that the majority have to sell their labor power at a disadvantage because of the asymmetrical transaction between many would-be laborers and few rich employers is in fact an unjust restriction of the laborer's right to a fair deal.
This is not economics it's social justice. Economics, as you have apparently studied it, just assumes the capitalist system and then describes (rather poorly) how it works.


none of this infringes on any liberties. the liberty with capitalism not shared by communism, is the liberty to compete. Although you may see a market where wealth is highly tilted towards owners, and the labor base is lacking, that description lacks the idea that any may rise to the level he or she wishes. The laborer's right to fair deal comes from the competition between employers for the supply of labor. This right, this liberty, is not given in other economies.

Economics, doesn't assume anything, but basic human thoughts, recorded through thousands of years (incentive, etc.). Then, everything is built from there.
 
nanorobot said:
Not always. Capitalism has its own hierarchial and authoritarian institutions. It is not really free for the poor.

it is free to the poor, because they have the choice to rise or not. This isn't a caste system...
 
Last edited:
Wishbone said:
it is free to the poor, because they have the choice to rise or not. This isn't a caste system...

No it's not. They do not always possesses the money, resources and access to education to go up.
 
nanorobot said:
No it's not. They do not always possesses the money, resources and access to education to go up.


you can go up without money, if you had money, you'd already be up. Access to education is up to them, sometimes its more difficult to work your way to the top, however it is always within reach.
 
Free cooperation between free individuals is more effiecient than a system of involuntary competiton and hierarchial domination.
 
Wishbone said:
you can go up without money, if you had money, you'd already be up. Access to education is up to them, sometimes its more difficult to work your way to the top, however it is always within reach.

This is a fantasy if we interpret "always" as meaning "for everybody". You can't show it's available even to everybody who is capable of carrying on an independent social life (i.e. not institutionalized). At its worst this attitude is used to blame poor people for their poverty, because the opportunity of getting rich "was always available" to them.
 
We all depend on one another for survival and development. This is why there is a division of labor in current societies.