Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Them that has, gets. Creating an unequal siciety is teh goal of a "capitalist" economy. keeping teh inequality is the task of 'conservative' politics.
It is really working well. them that has are getting more. and more. and more
Just want to challenge this assertion by playing devils advocate, before this thread becomes a litany of reasons why people hate capitalism.
Socialist Societies and Poverty
UK 20% of its citizens are poor
vs
US 10% of our citizens are poor
You could easily go from country to country and make this comparison and in all cases you'll notice, that capitalism is the most effective way of reducing mass amounts of poverty within a society. While many do not like the rapid increase in riches that the wealthiest recieve from the free-economy. It can easily be argued that a "rising tide lifts all ships."
Them that has, gets. Creating an unequal siciety is teh goal of a "capitalist" economy. keeping teh inequality is the task of 'conservative' politics.
It is really working well. them that has are getting more. and more. and more
Where do you get the idea that this is the goal? This may happen, but the goal would be more along the lines of a free market economy with little government interference so that people have to opportunity to create their own financial situation.
Where do you get the idea that this is the goal? This may happen, but the goal would be more along the lines of a free market economy with little government interference so that people have to opportunity to create their own financial situation.
Pretty much like most of the old systems with nobles and serfs right? Just let those with money make the rules and the rest of us just have to go along with them?
Just want to challenge this assertion by playing devils advocate, before this thread becomes a litany of reasons why people hate capitalism.
Socialist Societies and Poverty
UK 20% of its citizens are poor
vs
US 10% of our citizens are poor
You could easily go from country to country and make this comparison and in all cases you'll notice, that capitalism is the most effective way of reducing mass amounts of poverty within a society. While many do not like the rapid increase in riches that the wealthiest receive from the free-economy. It can easily be argued that a "rising tide lifts all ships."
Thats a pretty ambiguous statistic. How do you define poor? Where do they live and what is their cost of living? What kind of government assistance is available to them?
If their system is so horrible, answer me this:
Why aren't their poor resorting to drugs and guns like our poor are?
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
You cannot divide things up as easily as race and income. I had the same argument with some professor a few years back on a radio talk show. His claim: black family income was much less than white family income and racism is why. My claim: cultural differences- not racism account for most of the gap and you have to compare apples with apples. The call went something like this:
ME: Can you define what you mean when you say "family"? Does family include 2 parents with children?
HIM: The study included both 2 parent and single parent families
ME: Are you aware of the fact that, due to cultural differences, blacks are far more likely not to be married with both a father and a mother in the house?
HIM: Yes and your point is....
ME: My point is this- 70% of black children live with only one parent while 30% of white children do. Obviously 2 incomes are going to be better than one income. That and not racism is what accounts for much of the income gap. The only fair thing to do is compare white and black familes who have the same charactoristics in maritial status, education and other factors and I am sure the income gap will be small if there is any at all. But moving on....
ME: Can you describe what you mean when you say "income" Does that include all income or just wages?
HIM: The study included the family total income as reported on income tax forms.
ME: You are aware of the fact that white families have on average more income from investments than black familes aren't you?
HIM: I don't understand the point.
ME: The point is simply this- blacks have culturally been consumer oriented and not investor oriented. They tend to spend most of their income on consumer items and do not generally save or invest much. Whites tend to save and invest more. Not that there is anything wrong with consumption because our economy would be in trouble without it but it does effect income. New cars do not pay interest and dividends. So the only fair wany to make such a study would be to exclude any income outside of wages.
You cannot divide things up as easily as race and income. I had the same argument with some professor a few years back on a radio talk show. His claim: black family income was much less than white family income and racism is why. My claim: cultural differences- not racism account for most of the gap and you have to compare apples with apples. The call went something like this:
ME: Can you define what you mean when you say "family"? Does family include 2 parents with children?
HIM: The study included both 2 parent and single parent families
ME: Are you aware of the fact that, due to cultural differences, blacks are far more likely not to be married with both a father and a mother in the house?
HIM: Yes and your point is....
ME: My point is this- 70% of black children live with only one parent while 30% of white children do. Obviously 2 incomes are going to be better than one income. That and not racism is what accounts for much of the income gap. The only fair thing to do is compare white and black familes who have the same charactoristics in maritial status, education and other factors and I am sure the income gap will be small if there is any at all. But moving on....
ME: Can you describe what you mean when you say "income" Does that include all income or just wages?
HIM: The study included the family total income as reported on income tax forms.
ME: You are aware of the fact that white families have on average more income from investments than black familes aren't you?
HIM: I don't understand the point.
ME: The point is simply this- blacks have culturally been consumer oriented and not investor oriented. They tend to spend most of their income on consumer items and do not generally save or invest much. Whites tend to save and invest more. Not that there is anything wrong with consumption because our economy would be in trouble without it but it does effect income. New cars do not pay interest and dividends. So the only fair wany to make such a study would be to exclude any income outside of wages.
I can easily challenge this assertion, but that's not what this forum is about not even remotely, but check out Asians. They are by far the best and easiest way to point out racism in working wages, so are women to a degree (those that work and do not become pregnant for the most part have parity with white males, however there's still a white male premium paid for wages, so it will probably never be equal for same job same amount of work). However, i'm of the belief that the market does a fairly decent job of removing extreme cases of racism within wages etc. Anyway using blacks is pointless, so you argument is weak, but on some points very valid in reference to blacks.
My reasons in saying use Asian. They are on the whole better qualified than whites, score better, test better, are more educated. Yet up until recently they were paid less even though they worked higher paying jobs more often as an overall group and had better qualifications. Sure you'll see the top 5% of Asians earn considerably more than the top 5% of whites, but this is only a very recent development. Also note that even with all of their qualifications they held significnatly less managerial positions than both blacks and whites etc. Anyway, point is if you want to tackle an inomce question you use the best qualified group to do it. Any other means is a waste of time and a dishonest way to persuade yourself racism in wages does not exist.
Thats a pretty ambiguous statistic. How do you define poor? Where do they live and what is their cost of living? What kind of government assistance is available to them?
If their system is so horrible, answer me this:
Why aren't their poor resorting to drugs and guns like our poor are?
Do you have statistical evidence to back up your assertions, that the British poor do not use as many drugs as we do here in the states? Your argument is short sighted and not very well thoughtout.
Our drug homcide crimes have to do with
1. Drugs being extremely illegal
2. Extremely harsh penalties for drug use and drug selling (British laws are very lax eg. Get caught selling pot in the UK 3-6 month sentence vs US 5-10 years) much more risky engaging in illegal activities here than over there isnt it?
3. Government adding to drug competition
Eliminate those factors and we function just like the british without such a high murder rate. Furthermore we have more than 32 million poor people in the US and only about 6 million of them live in the inner city and participate in high levels of crime. The rest live in rurual states like SD, ND, WV, MT, VT, ME, and etc where crime rates are non-existent, so you argument is not only statistical wrong when saying our poor cause a lot of crime its also factual wrong. The majority of our poor do not commit high amounts of murder. Most murder by our poor is in high density areas (like large cities) and involve gangs and drugs (although I think arguments are the greatest cause of homicide in the US).
Anyway the point was to say, that soiclism does not clean up poverty as effective as capitalism. All it does at best is increase poverty. Poor for a first world country is much different than for "world poverty." Poor in a first world country is relative to that country and other first world countries.
Location: Jonquil City (aka Smyrna) Georgia- by Atlanta
16,259 posts, read 24,763,471 times
Reputation: 3587
Quote:
Originally Posted by truthhurts
I can easily challenge this assertion, but that's not what this forum is about not even remotely, but check out Asians. They are by far the best and easiest way to point out racism in working wages, so are women to a degree (those that work and do not become pregnant for the most part have parity with white males, however there's still a white male premium paid for wages, so it will probably never be equal for same job same amount of work). However, i'm of the belief that the market does a fairly decent job of removing extreme cases of racism within wages etc. Anyway using blacks is pointless, so you argument is weak, but on some points very valid in reference to blacks.
My reasons in saying use Asian. They are on the whole better qualified than whites, score better, test better, are more educated. Yet up until recently they were paid less even though they worked higher paying jobs more often as an overall group and had better qualifications. Sure you'll see the top 5% of Asians earn considerably more than the top 5% of whites, but this is only a very recent development. Also note that even with all of their qualifications they held significnatly less managerial positions than both blacks and whites etc. Anyway, point is if you want to tackle an inomce question you use the best qualified group to do it. Any other means is a waste of time and a dishonest way to persuade yourself racism in wages does not exist.
I don't know where you saw that but both the Indians and Asians down here are doing quite well.
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.
--Anatole France.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
