What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

Post by xerophyte12932 » Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:37 AM UTC

Snargorf wrote: post #415

xerophyte12932 wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Minor nitpick: Prostitutes make a lot? I guess depends on which part of the world we are talking about. I hear you can get them in South Asia for as low as $5. Probably lower.

Compared to what they could make in another job, they make a lot wherever they are. e.g. here it's hundreds per hour for a girl who would barely beat minimum wage otherwise. $5 in South Asia is mostly mythical, but even where it would be true, that's a large multiple over what they could make otherwise.

> $5 in South Asia is mostly mythical,

Much to everyone's surprise, it's not. People from the region attest to the fact.

> Even where it would be true, that's a large multiple over what they could make otherwise.

Only if you factor in that these women are uneducated, poverty-stricken and job prospects are low.

Post by mahranch » Tue, Apr 19, 2016, 3:47 AM UTC

webXL wrote: post #401

jernfrost wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adam Smith, father of free market economics, pointed out already 300 years ago the fallacy of this argument. He has a passage about how an Englishman was expected to wear leather shoes while a frenchman could walk barefoot without being ashamed. Further he talks about how in his day a linen shirt if considered a necessity even for the poor while the ancient greeks and romans could do well without it. So the point is…

Poverty may always be a relative phenomenon (even in Cuba) but there has been no better system to lift people out of the life-threatening effects of abject poverty than capitalism. In fact, you cannot have a success with socialism without a large number of wealthy (or well-off) people to tax, and a society cannot tax itself to prosperity. > I live in a smaller house and have no car. But I have no financial worries li…

> In fact, you cannot have a success with socialism without a large number of wealthy (or well-off) people to tax, and a society cannot tax itself to prosperity.

And you can't have success with capitalism without a healthy and prosperous working/poor middle class to be your consumers.

I'm thinking of democratic socialism. It's capitalism with a heavy emphasis on welfare and super strong social safety nets.

If you look at the quality of life index (the "where-to-be-born" index), you'll see that the top 10 countries all employ a form of democratic socialism. That's saying something right there.

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?

Re: What if the problem of poverty is that it’s profitable to other people?