Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: Easy explanation why capitalism benefits the poor.

  1. #1

    Default Easy explanation why capitalism benefits the poor.

    The common argument against capitalism is that the greedy rich hog everything for themselves and they don't leave anything for the poor. I think I have a pretty simple argument why this is not true. It should be pretty obvious that if you leave the producers alone (capitalism) you get more stuff. The more you burden them with taxes and regulations (socialism), the less stuff you are going to get. So if there's more stuff to go around, isn't it more likely that the poor are going to get more stuff also? Suppose under capitalism farmers grow 2 million tons of food, but under socialism and the resulting reduced incentive, farmers only grow 1 million tons of food. Isn't it more likely that most people will get fed with twice as much food to go around? Even if you don't force it to happen?



  2. Remove this section of ads by registering.
  3. #2

    Default

    Yes, people who provide actual value in the market place grow the pie. If poor people want a bigger slice of pie, they shouldn't take it by force from rich people who made the pie so big because they might not make as much pie next time. They should be grateful for how much pie they produced, because their slice grows too.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  4. #3

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    they might not make as much pie next time.
    That's OK, we'll just keep taking a bigger slice. That'll will teach them to be more productive.
    What is the punishment for the attempted murder of freedom on earth? 👁👁

  5. #4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    The common argument against capitalism is that the greedy rich hog everything for themselves and they don't leave anything for the poor. I think I have a pretty simple argument why this is not true. It should be pretty obvious that if you leave the producers alone (capitalism) you get more stuff. The more you burden them with taxes and regulations (socialism), the less stuff you are going to get. So if there's more stuff to go around, isn't it more likely that the poor are going to get more stuff also? Suppose under capitalism farmers grow 2 million tons of food, but under socialism and the resulting reduced incentive, farmers only grow 1 million tons of food. Isn't it more likely that most people will get fed with twice as much food to go around? Even if you don't force it to happen?
    Indeed, but many socialists understand this and still want socialism.

    They prefer equal poverty to unequal wealth: better everyone starve together than your neighbor have 2 speedboats while you have 1.

    In other words, they're insane.

  6. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Indeed, but many socialists understand this and still want socialism.

    They prefer equal poverty to unequal wealth: better everyone starve together than your neighbor have 2 speedboats while you have 1.

    In other words, they're insane.
    The Brother-in-Law Test - “Wealth: Income that is at least $100 more a year than the income of one’s wife’s sister’s husband”
    What is the punishment for the attempted murder of freedom on earth? 👁👁

  7. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    Yes, people who provide actual value in the market place grow the pie. If poor people want a bigger slice of pie, they shouldn't take it by force from rich people who made the pie so big because they might not make as much pie next time. They should be grateful for how much pie they produced, because their slice grows too.
    I don't really like the pie argument because it gives the impression that the amount of stuff produced is fixed.

  8. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by r3volution 3.0 View Post
    Indeed, but many socialists understand this and still want socialism.

    They prefer equal poverty to unequal wealth: better everyone starve together than your neighbor have 2 speedboats while you have 1.

    In other words, they're insane.
    Some of them, but I think most of them actually think socialism raises the standard of living for the poor.

  9. #8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    I don't really like the pie argument because it gives the impression that the amount of stuff produced is fixed.
    No, that's the whole point of the argument, you GROW the pie.

    The pie argument is good because people are used to it, everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie, but by explaining to them that capitalists help grow the pie and make it a bigger pie, there is more pie to share, and someone who gets a relatively small slice will have a relatively big slice to what they would have had if the pie were smaller.
    Last edited by dannno; 09-20-2017 at 01:15 PM.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  10. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Some of them, but I think most of them actually think socialism raises the standard of living for the poor.
    Nearly all of them think that, but rev is right that some in their heart probably think the way he explained it even though they don't portray it that way.
    "He's talkin' to his gut like it's a person!!" -me
    "dumpster diving isn't professional." - angelatc


    "Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes. But let it not be said that we did nothing." - Ron Paul

    "Paul said "the wave of the future" is a coalition of anti-authoritarian progressive Democrats and libertarian Republicans in Congress opposed to domestic surveillance, opposed to starting new wars and in favor of ending the so-called War on Drugs."

  11. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Madison320 View Post
    Some of them, but I think most of them actually think socialism raises the standard of living for the poor.
    I agree; most of them do think that.

    ...just pointing out that there is a faction of socialists for whom equality is the prime/only consideration.

    That's really the origin of socialism.

    It was already late in the history of the glorious movement () when anyone started talking about economics.

  12. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dannno View Post
    No, that's the whole point of the argument, you GROW the pie.

    The pie argument is good because people are used to it, everybody wants a bigger piece of the pie, but by explaining to them that capitalists help grow the pie and make it a bigger pie, there is more pie to share, and someone who gets a relatively small slice will have a relatively big slice to what they would have had if the pie were smaller.
    I agree. In my brain the idea of more "stuff" like food is easier to understand than "growing the pie" but I'm getting nit picky.

  13. #12

    Default

    Let's bake a pie and give it to George. Bill and Tom don't get any pie. They can't afford to buy any. If we bake another pie and give that one to George, do Tom and Bill get a bigger slice?

    So if there's more stuff to go around, isn't it more likely that the poor are going to get more stuff also?
    One has to assume that the poor got jobs producing that stuff so they can afford to buy it.
    Last edited by Zippyjuan; 09-20-2017 at 02:13 PM.
    Quote Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post

    Half the crap I write here is just to entertain myself.
    I am Zippy and I approve of this post. But you don't have to.

  14. #13

    Default

    I thought Margaret Thatcher explained it best, even though it went right over the heads of the rabid socialists in Great Britain and they mocked her crude but accurate hand gestures.


  15. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Let's bake a pie and give it to George. Bill and Tom don't get any pie. They can't afford to buy any. If we bake another pie and give that one to George, do Tom and Bill get a bigger slice?
    The goal, from the liberal perspective, should be to grow the pie and distribute it to people in proportion to how much they benefit their fellow man. This is what the market economy accomplishes. If Tom and Bill produce something of value to others, they will be rewarded accordingly; if not, ...they will rewarded accordingly. The important thing is not who gets what, in itself, but how people get what (e.g. by producing things of value or by stealing).

  16. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post

    One has to assume that the poor got jobs producing that stuff so they can afford to buy it.
    Unfortunately, you don't even need to assume that. The United States is so wealthy, welfare alone pays more than the median income of Mexico. Welfare payments alone make someone one of highest earners on the planet. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timwors.../#148193ca316f

    If you add in things like housing, Medicaid and you have multiple kids a person gets a lot more. 1 in 5 welfare recipients gets $35k between dollars and benefits. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.08b4bd767d8c

    A person who earns 30k is in the top 1% of wage earners in the world. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-live-U-S.html

    Countries with market economies and a stable rule of law, even with a generous welfare state, are very productive 100% of the time. No exceptions. Countries that embrace nationalized industries or have leaders that steal businesses and property are poor.

  17. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Krugminator2 View Post
    Countries with market economies and a stable rule of law, even with a generous welfare state, are very productive 100% of the time. No exceptions.
    Only detractors like Sen. Paul claim the economy is in trouble because we are borrowing $1M/minute.
    What is the punishment for the attempted murder of freedom on earth? 👁👁

  18. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timosman View Post
    Only detractors like Sen. Paul claim the economy is in trouble because we are borrowing $1M/minute.
    He's not a good person to listen to on the debt or monetary policy. He's nails on a chalkboard. He is chronically bearish.

    I do point out the structural problems that states and the federal government have with entitlements all the time. For example . Yesterday. http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...e-Income-Taxes

    That doesn't mean that standards of living are just going to drop. Things will be better 20 years from now than they are today.

  19. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zippyjuan View Post
    Let's bake a pie and give it to George. Bill and Tom don't get any pie. They can't afford to buy any. If we bake another pie and give that one to George, do Tom and Bill get a bigger slice?



    One has to assume that the poor got jobs producing that stuff so they can afford to buy it.
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Zippyjuan again.
    Do something donnay


    Quiz: Test Your "Income" Tax IQ!


    Short Income Tax Video

    The Income Tax Is An Excise, And Excise Taxes Are Privilege Taxes

    The Federalist Papers, No. 15:

    Except as to the rule of appointment, the United States have an indefinite discretion to make requisitions for men and money; but they have no authority to raise either by regulations extending to the individual citizens of America.

  20. #19

    Default

    I am a capitalist . I have pie . I worked for it . I do not care if others have pie . For those of you who are bothered by the pieless , you may donate some of your pie voluntarily ( or maybe , they will get off their ass and earn some pie for themselves ) . If people try and steal my pie and take it against my will I will hoard it , hide it and laugh as I roll in my bounty of pie since the evil forces of pie robbers and highwaymen were thwarted by my cunning. As great Pie Chieftan this is my right.

  21. #20

    Default

    $#@! a bunch of pie...

    I work for steak.






Similar Threads

  1. A New, Easy-to-Read Explanation of Mises's Human Action
    By Suzanimal in forum Books & Literature
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 08-05-2016, 09:29 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 11-08-2011, 04:19 AM
  3. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-29-2011, 04:46 AM
  4. Are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor?
    By TheCaliforniaLife in forum Economy & Markets
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 11-18-2010, 05:47 AM
  5. Anarcho-capitalism vs Free Market Anti-Capitalism
    By awake in forum Political Philosophy & Government Policy
    Replies: 84
    Last Post: 05-13-2010, 04:12 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •