A new non-statist approach needed to reduce poverty

[Iosias]

As Reagan said so well, liberals have waged war on poverty, but poverty won! A statist approach to poverty reduction is, however well meaning, doomed to certain failure. For a well written apologetic on this I recommend you read The Tragedy of American Compassion. Considering this I am pained when I see the British political elite expousing a statist approach. Whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Tory, a one-nation statist conservatism reigns. How much longer will it take for these to recognize that economic growth, the only form of poverty reduction, is maximized by lassaiz-faire and so government should be small enough to drown in a bath tub.

 

[Iosias]

I fully promote capitalism.

But does not capitalism just worship mamon?

 

[rahma]

What if one works and is still in poverty?

Working a basic job, $13 an hour, won't support a wife, house and kids.

 

[Lifesaver]

I'm completely with you, AV. While I don't like to subscribe my veiws under the name "Capitalism" (which due to excessive usage has lost almost all meaning), I too uphold the benefits of free trade and free enterprise, as they are the measures to truly decrease poverty and increase material comfort for everyone, and deplore the socialistic ideas which prevail in the great majority of countries.
The economy is one are where the popular common sense is dead wrong...

Still, I don't think the problems of my country, or even of the world today, could be solved by economic policies and re-structuring. The deeper flaws of our societies are moral and spiritual, not material (though if material conditions were improved, things would indeed be a lot better).

 

[aLx]

As Reagan said so well, liberals have waged war on poverty, but poverty won! A statist approach to poverty reduction is, however well meaning, doomed to certain failure. For a well written apologetic on this I recommend you read The Tragedy of American Compassion. Considering this I am pained when I see the British political elite expousing a statist approach. Whether Labour, Liberal Democrat or Tory, a one-nation statist conservatism reigns. How much longer will it take for these to recognize that economic growth, the only form of poverty reduction, is maximized by lassaiz-faire and so government should be small enough to drown in a bath tub.

Compare the gap between the rich and poor here (UK) then look at it in America. The gap is far wider in America and is widening. Why is it less here? Because of a statist approach. Look at the world thanks to free markets - poverty beyond imagination, a host of third world countries, people dying.
How does economic growth reduce poverty?
Don't play the 'trickle down' card either. That failed under Thatcher and Co.

 

[Lifesaver]

Compare the gap between the rich and poor here (UK) then look at it in America. The gap is far wider in America and is widening. Why is it less here? Because of a statist approach. Look at the world thanks to free markets - poverty beyond imagination, a host of third world countries, people dying.
How does economic growth reduce poverty?
Don't play the 'trickle down' card either. That failed under Thatcher and Co.

Look at the unemployement in Britain. Why is it lower than in Germany and France?

And have you any (really, any at all) idea of why "third world" countries are poor? Or did someone tell you free trade did it and you believed?
Because those countries which became less statized and let the economy run freer, as Chile and Eastern tigers, are actually growing and fairing a lot better socially than those which cling to old socialistic or welfarestatian formulas of high taxing and high public spending.

And you talk about free markets in the world... There are NO free markets "in the world". The regions which signed free trade deals have all their members doing better because of them.

Just ask any Mexican to compare the state of things some 20 years ago and today. Just look at the increase of consumption.

The more labour laws, state-owned companies, trade barriers and subsidies a country has, the more unemployement and the less production it will have. It's something simple and simple to prove; if only people would care less about ideology and more about the truth, more progress could be made.

 

[BobbieDog]

I think economists should do ecenomics. That involves bringing all ecenomic perspectives to bear, the wisdom of the discipline to bear.
An ecenomy interacts with a society in complex and varied manner.
We should not be forced into doctrinaire choices as to our ecenomic management.
Ecenomics should also be applied at micro levels: where a statist approach might be appropriate in certain social setting, with its social value priorities; and another ecenomic approach be more appropriate to another.
It might be mark of the maturity and flexibility of a macro-ecenomic management: where a diffuse variety of ecenomic forms and dynamics, could coexist as one dynamically unified ecenomy.
The Shakers would be a dramatic example of a variant ecenomic form within the USA.

 

[jgarden]

Here's an idea: If you don't want to live in poverty, get a job.

I disagree with socialism. I fully promote capitalism.

Free trade has allowed approximately 1 million jobs to be "outsourced" to countries like China and India. Is it your argument that the American standard of living regress to that of a 3rd world country to create full employment? It certainly doesn't equate to economic prosperity.

Since the wealthy view the poor as an expendable commodity, what's to stop a group with its back to the wall from exercising their 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights? Overthrowing a tyrannical system and redistributing America's wealth - at the point of a gun! What could be more American?

 

[Lifesaver]

Free trade has allowed approximately 1 million jobs to be "outsourced" to countries like China and India. Is it your argument that the American standard of living regress to that of a 3rd world country to create full employment? It certainly doesn't equate to economic prosperity.

Wake up to reality, jgarden.
Are you willing to pay out of your own pocket so that some guy who inneficient keeps his job over someone who is more efficient?
And as a bonus, you get higher prices on your grocery list because of that inneficiency.

Next people will be campaigning for ascensorists on every elevator in the country, so as to generate jobs.

Since the wealthy view the poor as an expendable commodity, what's to stop a group with its back to the wall from exercising their 2nd Amendment Constitutional rights? Overthrowing a tyrannical system and redistributing America's wealth - at the point of a gun! What could be more American?

They did that in Russia, Cuba and others. Didn't work.
It is very disturbing to see that, in the 21st century there are people who still want to bring the bloody and criminal revolution back, and who admire the murderers and terrorists responsible for it.

 

[jgarden]

Wake up to reality, jgarden.
Are you willing to pay out of your own pocket so that some guy who inneficient keeps his job over someone who is more efficient?
And as a bonus, you get higher prices on your grocery list because of that inneficiency.

Next people will be campaigning for ascensorists on every elevator in the country, so as to generate jobs.


They did that in Russia, Cuba and others. Didn't work.
It is very disturbing to see that, in the 21st century there are people who still want to bring the bloody and criminal revolution back, and who admire the murderers and terrorists responsible for it.

The reality is that the average American is unwilling to accept a 3rd world wage and lifestyle because business, under the guise of free trade, says so. It isn't that the American worker who is inefficient, its just that he/she expects their American government to have their best interests (not the multinationals) at heart.

If business and government have not conscience, and feel no responsibility for the consequences of their actions, then why would they expect those groups adversely affected to adhere to a higher moral standard.

In terms of revolutions, you referred to Russia and Cuba, but why not America? Revolutions are a public response, not the cause of the problem. The Russian and Cuban public may not have envisioned a "communist" society, but what preceeded it was so terrible, they were willing to support any alternative.

You refer to "bloody and crimminal revolutions" in other countries, and condemn the "murders and terrorists responsible for it," but in the US the American Revolution is reveered. Was it not the 2nd Amendment, the deliberate intent of the Founding Fathers to prevent tyranny on the majority by those who would export their "livelihoods" for even greater profits.

The American Revolution, however, does set the precedent for subsequent revolutions when Americans begin to think that the conditions that existed in the 1770's are as tyrannical as those they are facing today. And they may choose not to be so polite as to accept the "do as we say, not as we do" rules that currently exist!

 

[Lifesaver]

The reality is that the average American is unwilling to accept a 3rd world wage and lifestyle because business, under the guise of free trade, says so. It isn't that the American worker who is inefficient, its just that he/she expects their American government to have their best interests (not the multinationals) at heart.

Free trade, as both economic theory and empirical observation has shown, makes life better for everyone.
With lower prices, people buy more, and generate more jobs.
Of course USA won't be producing all those oranges anymore, since they can be bought a lot cheaper from other places.
The American people will be able to buy more oranges.
And that is true for every product.
They'll spend more with American products as well (not to mention all the countries in the world which will also be buying USA-made products and thus hiring more Americans).
Whoever told you USA lost jobs because of free trade lied. Upon creating more efficiency, free trade allows for economic growth, and therefore increase of employement.
And yes, in many cases Americans are very inneficient. Those sectors, with free trade, will either have to shapen up and face the competition, or close doors.
Don't you think it a great disrespect to the American people to force them to buy national products, when if given the option they would prefer to buy the cheaper and better foreign goods (and if they don't prefer the foreign goods, then there's no reason to oppose free trade at all...)?

If business and government have not conscience, and feel no responsibility for the consequences of their actions, then why would they expect those groups adversely affected to adhere to a higher moral standard.

Each company will do what gives them the highest profit.

In terms of revolutions, you referred to Russia and Cuba, but why not America? Revolutions are a public response, not the cause of the problem. The Russian and Cuban public may not have envisioned a "communist" society, but what preceeded it was so terrible, they were willing to support any alternative.You refer to "bloody and crimminal revolutions" in other countries, and condemn the "murders and terrorists responsible for it," but in the US the American Revolution is revered. Was it not the 2nd Amendment, the deliberate intent of the Founding Fathers to prevent tyranny on the majority by those who would export their "livelihoods" for even greater profits.The American Revolution, however, does set the precedent for subsequent revolutions when Americans begin to think that the conditions that existed in the 1770's are as tyrannical as those they are facing today. And they may choose not to be so polite as to accept the "do as we say, not as we do" rules that currently exist!

Not all revolutions are just, and anyone who thinks right and wrong depend on what "Americans think" has fallen to some very low relativism.
And the American Revolution was for independence, not for "distribution of wealth", which is exactly the goal of your revolution, and was of the Russian, Cuban, Chinese revolutions.

 

[Key Peninsula Redneck]

Overthrowing a tyrannical system and redistributing America's wealth - at the point of a gun! What could be more American?

Where I come from, we have a term for that. It's called a felony.

 

[BobbieDog]

Where I come from, we have a term for that. It's called a felony.

And here's me been thinking, for years, that it was called the "New Deal".

 

[Iosias]

No, that is a misconception.

Capitalism allows people to work and earn money, as much or as little as they desire to earn.

But the goal of capitalism is to create wealth is it not?

 

[Iosias]

Compare the gap between the rich and poor here (UK) then look at it in America. The gap is far wider in America and is widening. Why is it less here? Because of a statist approach. Look at the world thanks to free markets - poverty beyond imagination, a host of third world countries, people dying.

The gap between the rich and the poor is not the issue...rather the number of people living in poverty.

How does economic growth reduce poverty?

Poverty is a lack of wealth and economic growth increases wealth...you do the math. Failing that buy a good economics textbook.

 

[aLx]

Poverty is a lack of wealth and economic growth increases wealth...you do the math. Failing that buy a good economics textbook.

But economic growth does not decrease the poverty. It makes the rich richer, unless of course you direct it to those living in poverty but then that would be too statist for you?
Also the gap between rich and poor is a good way of judging how economic growth has favoured people, over others.

And have you any (really, any at all) idea of why "third world" countries are poor? Or did someone tell you free trade did it and you believed?
Because those countries which became less statized and let the economy run freer, as Chile and Eastern tigers, are actually growing and fairing a lot better socially than those which cling to old socialistic or welfarestatian formulas of high taxing and high public spending.

This is more like a continuation of your hatred against socialism and any benefits than real fact. Most third world (why did you put that in "" ?) countries are poor because they have little if no resources. What do many countries in Africa have? They are poor because we in the west screw them out of their money. Look at the debt they owe us. Look at the interest and the internal policies they are forced to adhere to with an IMF loan.

And you talk about free markets in the world... There are NO free markets "in the world". The regions which signed free trade deals have all their members doing better because of them.

Maybe I should have said "freer markets". (again why did you ".." in the world?)

The more labour laws, state-owned companies, trade barriers and subsidies a country has, the more unemployement and the less production it will have. It's something simple and simple to prove; if only people would care less about ideology and more about the truth, more progress could be made.

Ok prove it then.
I agree if people would only stop clinging onto their conservative and neo-liberal theories and focused on the fact that this capitalism is killing people, even more progess would be made. Life is not all about the money, rate of producation etc you know?

 

[Iosias]

But economic growth does not decrease the poverty.

You have been reading too much Marx.

Also the gap between rich and poor is a good way of judging how economic growth has favoured people, over others.

Before:
Mr X Mr Y
$10 $100
After:
Mr X Mr Y
$20 $500

If the above occurred what does it matter about the fact that Mr X's income rose by 100% but Mr Y's rose by 500%? Surely what matters is that the incomes rose? Now they are both better-off!

 

[aLx]

You have been reading too much Marx.

Before:
Mr X Mr Y
$10 $100
After:
Mr X Mr Y
$20 $500

If the above occurred what does it matter about the fact that Mr X's income rose by 100% but Mr Y's rose by 500%? Surely what matters is that the incomes rose? Now they are both better-off!

Actually Mr X is worse off. Before he had only 10% of what Mr Y had, now he has only 4% of what Mr Y has got. When prices rose due to the increase in income then Mr X would actually be able to buy less than he could have done before!
Anyway this is all asuming that the economic growth would mean more income for Mr X which is by no means guaranteed.
And I don't read Marx. I am not a Communist, but a social democrat.

 

[Lifesaver]

But economic growth does not decrease the poverty. It makes the rich richer, unless of course you direct it to those living in poverty but then that would be too statist for you?
Also the gap between rich and poor is a good way of judging how economic growth has favoured people, over others.

The poorest of today in USA live like the richest in the beginning of the 20th century.

You seem to have fallen for the nation that the gap between rich and poor matters at all, when in fact it doesn't.
What matters is that even the poorest layers of society have their basic needs met (access to education, food, shelter, etc). If they do, then it doesn't matter how richer other people are.

Likewise, if a certain group of people does not have their basic necessities met, it doesn't matter whether they are rich or poor in their country; their situation must be changed.

Inequality is not bad at all, thus battling against it in itself is useless, not to mention harmful for the whole nation, which becomes poorer.

This is more like a continuation of your hatred against socialism and any benefits than real fact. Most third world (why did you put that in "" ?) countries are poor because they have little if no resources. What do many countries in Africa have? They are poor because we in the west screw them out of their money. Look at the debt they owe us. Look at the interest and the internal policies they are forced to adhere to with an IMF loan.

No country was ever forced to get a loan from the IMF. And if they do, it is because the loans help them (and they do).
As for debt from banks worldwide, that is also entirely up to the nation's government, which chooses the interest they'll pay for whoever lends them money.
And no, countries in Africa are not poor because someone else has screwed them. They are poor because of dishonest leaders, because of incompetent politicians, and because of their complete disregard for fundamental institutions to development: stable government, respect for private property and freedom of initiative.

Blaming their ills on another nations is a common political tactic of populist and demagogue politicians, both from left and right, but it is completely false. It is a shame that well-intentioned people who live in those countries fall for that old card, which whenever is successfully used makes things a lot worse for the country in question.

Ok prove it then.
I agree if people would only stop clinging onto their conservative and neo-liberal theories and focused on the fact that this capitalism is killing people, even more progess would be made. Life is not all about the money, rate of producation etc you know?

Yes, I do, and that is precisely why I want freedom.
But whereas we agree life is not about money and production rates, we must remember that there are people in the world who do not enjoy basic living conditions, and it is up to those who are better off, and have access to a better education, to give them the oportunity to leave their dreadful state.
It is proved beyond all doubt, both in theory and in practice, that free trade and free enterprise bring development and better living conditions for a nation, while a socialistic, statist approach either makes the nation in question really miserable (Brazil, USSR, Bolivia, India) or raises unemployment and increases the need of welfare to such a degree that it stunts growth (Germany, France, England up to the 80s, Finland).

 

[jgarden]

Overthrowing a tyrannical system and redistributing America's wealth - at the point of a gun! What could be more American?

Where I come from, we have a term for that. It's called a felony.

Its only a "felony" if you lose. The "Boston Tea Party" and the expropriation of the property of those colonists who remained loyal to the Crown, the "legal authority"of the time, would have been felonies if the American Revolution had failed. All those potential "felons" suddenly became American heroes only because they won. In "history," there is a fine line between heroes, criminals and traitors. It all depends on who wins and who gets to write that "history."