7 ms·

Poverty in America is a result of American capitalism, at a very high level. At a very very high level, it is caused by human greed, and a lack of love for our

Poverty in America is a result of American capitalism, at a very high level. At a very very high level, it is caused by human greed, and a lack of love for our neighbors. We can talk about wages and employment rates, and race all day long, but those are just details. It's human greed in the end, and our inability to love others like we love ourselves.

whb07 8y ago
I don't care or need to love you. But I do love my family and myself. So if I need to put on a smile and provide a service or good to you for money to help the people I love I will do it. That's the point of capitalism and free markets. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”
- paulsutter 8y ago
  Something has really changed. In those days the rewards were fairly linear and available everywhere. But now rewards are nonlinear and highly concentrated. Income inequality (and opportunity inequality) will continue to increase, and we probably need to rethink these pithy little axioms that powered the 1900s.
  - sonnyblarney 8y ago
    My belief is that the non-linearity is not due the lack of opportunity of some, but rather the hyper-opportunity of others. The Silicon Valley isn't really an 'American' centre, it's like a 'Global Centre' where for the first time, indiviuals can have massively disproportionate, global impact. A doctor may earn a big income, but he can only work on so many patients where as some global firms ... the yields are huge. Coupled with some automation and large scale immigration of unskilled labour in North America which hurts labour, and outsourcing as well ... it creates a schism. But remember that on a global basis, billions are being lifted out of utter and abject poverty. It's mostly a good story. We have to figure out the working class in advanced nations. I actually do believe that it's mostly about good jobs, decent services, decent community. That's all there really ever was.
    - wallflower 8y ago
      It's not really hyper opportunity, it is impact. Impact is the reason why an elementary school teacher gets paid in the low-to-mid 5 figures and a professional ball player can get paid 7 figures. Usually, a school teacher has 20-30 kids in their classroom, while a professional ball player can indirectly influence tens of thousands of kids and adults in their "buying" decisions. Impact is why Franz Schubert died poor and why Ozzy Osbourne made millions. Technology can exponentially increase your reach and your impact. Ozzy in the medieval ages would have been just a tale told between towns. If you are a skilled marketer, the Internet is your oyster.
      - sonnyblarney 8y ago
        Yes I agree to all of that except you're missing out on power and market power. The biggest winners will be investors in tech, not employees, who will do well, but not as well as capital FYI.
        wallflower 8y ago
        Kind of like a modern update on Karl Marx's "those who own the means of production are the capitalist class". A Modern update because "means of production" back when it was written meant non-human assets (e.g. machines) and the tech industry is clearly harnessing the collective effort of human assets now.
- threatofrain 8y ago
  So we are re-hashing the western academic historical debate on economic models of rationality...
- bobwaycott 8y ago
  Ah, the old trope of trotting out Adam Smith. It may surprise you to know Smith was concerned about unfettered self-interest and the ways it would damage society. He wasn’t lauding self-interest and praising it as the perfection capitalism claims it to be. Why not include some more of his gems? Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable. In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
  - apatters 8y ago
    I don't see anything in the parent's comment indicating that he supports unfettered self-interest. As far as I can tell almost everyone nowadays supports the idea of having markets which are partially free, but subject to some regulation (which was Smith's position). Hardcore Rand and Marx devotees are on the fringe. We are all just debating the degree and character of the regulation. We debate within Smith's world because he was right and it's easy to see, free markets tend to produce big winners who have so much wealth and power that they eventually find a way to corrupt the market. Regulation should focus on this basic problem: there's no great social upside to a $100B company becoming an $200B company, whereas there's lots of social upside to promoting lots of competition, small firms, and a sense of fairness so that everyone can pursue their self-interest.
    - bobwaycott 8y ago
      > I don't see anything in the parent's comment indicating that he supports unfettered self-interest. I never suggested the parent indicated this.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  Karl Marx: As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise, or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land. ... The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. ... Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. ... A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. ... No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged. ... Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power. ... POLITICAL œconomy, considered as a branch of the science of aThe first object of political economy is to provide subsistence for the people statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign. Oh, silly me, that's Adam Smith. So hard to tell them apart. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/... http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations-cannan-ed-vol-1#lf0206-01_head_052 http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-an-inquiry-into-the-...
  - 8y ago
darawk 8y ago
Is that why hunter gatherer societies didn't have poverty? Is that why communist countries weren't poor? How is that working out for Venezuela? Capitalism is literally the only thing in human history that has ever lifted large numbers of people out of poverty.
- whatever1 8y ago
  Hi. China is calling.
  - darawk 8y ago
    China is successful now entirely as a result of their conversion to capitalism. This is an extremely well known fact about China. China tried communism, it went absolutely terribly. They changed to capitalism, and things got good. I can't imagine an example that more perfectly agrees with my point.
    - whatever1 8y ago
      How is Facebook doing in capitalist China?
      - whatever1 8y ago
        Also, in which textbook is it stated that capitalism requires joint ventures of the government with every multinational company that tries to operate whithin its borders?
        darawk 8y ago
        They're not fully capitalist. Their economic success began when they started their slow conversion to capitalism, and has proceeded in lockstep with their loosening of economic regulation. This is not a co-incidence.
      - acchow 8y ago
        Facebook is banned behind the Great Firewall. Regardless, what does this have to do with the discussion?
oh_sigh 8y ago
What is poverty in noncapitalist countries a result of?
- brickcitymang 8y ago
  Human greed lol or they're poor and nobody wants to help them because they're too busy covering their own asses. Basically there's enough resources in the world for nobody to live in poverty. It doesn't work because nobody's willing to make it work, which is just human nature of selfishness.
  - brickcitymang 8y ago
    And I don't deny this nature in myself
    - apatters 8y ago
      It seems like you're lamenting what is basically an immutable biological trait without proposing any solutions. I don't think this adds much to the discussion.
      - brickcitymang 8y ago
        apatters, a discussion on the internet doesn't need solutions. If we loved everyone like we love ourselves, we would not let people go hungry, or suffer. I believe few people have achieved this level of transcendence, and it starts with knowing yourself. If somehow I could write a comment over the internet that can make you do some self-reflection I would. But I don't know what that comment is.
      - 3x 8y ago
        > immutable biological trait So now your two SUVs and white McMansion with a picket fence are an "immutable biological trait"?
        apatters 8y ago
acchow 8y ago
There was no poverty before America?
- brickcitymang 8y ago
  Poverty itself can be caused by many things. But poverty in the most powerful country on Earth is not for a lack of resources.
  - acchow 8y ago
    There was no poverty in Ancient Rome?
    - joesb 8y ago
      There was almost nothing you can consider modern science or technology in Ancient Rome. No matter how powerful Ancient Rome was, it wasn't even comparable to some third world country today.
    - brickcitymang 8y ago
      If poverty exists in a world where resources are plenty for everyone, the root cause is selfishness. Our inability to love others like we love ourselves.
skookumchuck 8y ago
The US went from subsistence farming in 1800 to superpower a hundred years later. Nearly the entire population that made up the US arrived penniless, and moved up into the middle class and higher. To say that American capitalism somehow "caused" poverty is contrary to about every statistic.
- lasagnaphil 8y ago
  And those people were able to rise by hurting the natives originally living there... no free lunch theorem strikes again
  - skookumchuck 8y ago
    The same thing happened to the South American natives, but the immigrants there did not rise. Now they want to move north to the US. There's something different about the US - capitalism.

whb07 8y ago

I don't care or need to love you. But I do love my family and myself. So if I need to put on a smile and provide a service or good to you for money to help the people I love I will do it. That's the point of capitalism and free markets. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own self-interest. We address ourselves not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages”

paulsutter 8y ago
Something has really changed. In those days the rewards were fairly linear and available everywhere. But now rewards are nonlinear and highly concentrated. Income inequality (and opportunity inequality) will continue to increase, and we probably need to rethink these pithy little axioms that powered the 1900s.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  My belief is that the non-linearity is not due the lack of opportunity of some, but rather the hyper-opportunity of others. The Silicon Valley isn't really an 'American' centre, it's like a 'Global Centre' where for the first time, indiviuals can have massively disproportionate, global impact. A doctor may earn a big income, but he can only work on so many patients where as some global firms ... the yields are huge. Coupled with some automation and large scale immigration of unskilled labour in North America which hurts labour, and outsourcing as well ... it creates a schism. But remember that on a global basis, billions are being lifted out of utter and abject poverty. It's mostly a good story. We have to figure out the working class in advanced nations. I actually do believe that it's mostly about good jobs, decent services, decent community. That's all there really ever was.
  - wallflower 8y ago
    It's not really hyper opportunity, it is impact. Impact is the reason why an elementary school teacher gets paid in the low-to-mid 5 figures and a professional ball player can get paid 7 figures. Usually, a school teacher has 20-30 kids in their classroom, while a professional ball player can indirectly influence tens of thousands of kids and adults in their "buying" decisions. Impact is why Franz Schubert died poor and why Ozzy Osbourne made millions. Technology can exponentially increase your reach and your impact. Ozzy in the medieval ages would have been just a tale told between towns. If you are a skilled marketer, the Internet is your oyster.
    - sonnyblarney 8y ago
      Yes I agree to all of that except you're missing out on power and market power. The biggest winners will be investors in tech, not employees, who will do well, but not as well as capital FYI.
      - wallflower 8y ago
        Kind of like a modern update on Karl Marx's "those who own the means of production are the capitalist class". A Modern update because "means of production" back when it was written meant non-human assets (e.g. machines) and the tech industry is clearly harnessing the collective effort of human assets now.
threatofrain 8y ago
So we are re-hashing the western academic historical debate on economic models of rationality...
bobwaycott 8y ago
Ah, the old trope of trotting out Adam Smith. It may surprise you to know Smith was concerned about unfettered self-interest and the ways it would damage society. He wasn’t lauding self-interest and praising it as the perfection capitalism claims it to be. Why not include some more of his gems? Civil government, so far as it is instituted for the security of property, is in reality instituted for the defense of the rich against the poor, or of those who have some property against those who have none at all. No society can surely be flourishing and happy of which by far the greater part of the numbers are poor and miserable. In regards to the price of commodities, the rise of wages operates as simple interest does, the rise of profit operates like compound interest. Our merchants and masters complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price and lessening the sale of goods. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people.
- apatters 8y ago
  I don't see anything in the parent's comment indicating that he supports unfettered self-interest. As far as I can tell almost everyone nowadays supports the idea of having markets which are partially free, but subject to some regulation (which was Smith's position). Hardcore Rand and Marx devotees are on the fringe. We are all just debating the degree and character of the regulation. We debate within Smith's world because he was right and it's easy to see, free markets tend to produce big winners who have so much wealth and power that they eventually find a way to corrupt the market. Regulation should focus on this basic problem: there's no great social upside to a $100B company becoming an $200B company, whereas there's lots of social upside to promoting lots of competition, small firms, and a sense of fairness so that everyone can pursue their self-interest.
  - bobwaycott 8y ago
    > I don't see anything in the parent's comment indicating that he supports unfettered self-interest. I never suggested the parent indicated this.
dredmorbius 8y ago
Karl Marx: As soon as land becomes private property, the landlord demands a share of almost all the produce which the labourer can either raise, or collect from it. His rent makes the first deduction from the produce of the labour which is employed upon land. ... The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work; but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes the masters can hold out much longer. ... Masters are always and everywhere in a sort of tacit, but constant and uniform combination, not to raise the wages of labour above their actual rate. To violate this combination is everywhere a most unpopular action, and a sort of reproach to a master among his neighbours and equals. We seldom, indeed, hear of this combination, because it is the usual, and one may say, the natural state of things, which nobody ever hears of. Masters, too, sometimes enter into particular combinations to sink the wages of labour even below this rate. ... A man must always live by his work, and his wages must at least be sufficient to maintain him. They must even upon most occasions be somewhat more; otherwise it would be impossible for him to bring up a family, and the race of such workmen could not last beyond the first generation. ... No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, clothe, and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, clothed, and lodged. ... Wealth, as Mr Hobbes says, is power. ... POLITICAL œconomy, considered as a branch of the science of aThe first object of political economy is to provide subsistence for the people statesman or legislator, proposes two distinct objects: first, to provide a plentiful revenue or subsistence for the people, or more properly to enable them to provide such a revenue or subsistence for themselves; and secondly, to supply the state or commonwealth with a revenue sufficient for the public services. It proposes to enrich both the people and the sovereign. Oh, silly me, that's Adam Smith. So hard to tell them apart. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/Chapter_8 https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations/Book_I/... http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-an-inquiry-into-the-nature-and-causes-of-the-wealth-of-nations-cannan-ed-vol-1#lf0206-01_head_052 http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/smith-an-inquiry-into-the-...
- 8y ago

darawk 8y ago

Is that why hunter gatherer societies didn't have poverty? Is that why communist countries weren't poor? How is that working out for Venezuela? Capitalism is literally the only thing in human history that has ever lifted large numbers of people out of poverty.

whatever1 8y ago
Hi. China is calling.
- darawk 8y ago
  China is successful now entirely as a result of their conversion to capitalism. This is an extremely well known fact about China. China tried communism, it went absolutely terribly. They changed to capitalism, and things got good. I can't imagine an example that more perfectly agrees with my point.
  - whatever1 8y ago
    How is Facebook doing in capitalist China?
    - whatever1 8y ago
      Also, in which textbook is it stated that capitalism requires joint ventures of the government with every multinational company that tries to operate whithin its borders?
      - darawk 8y ago
        They're not fully capitalist. Their economic success began when they started their slow conversion to capitalism, and has proceeded in lockstep with their loosening of economic regulation. This is not a co-incidence.
    - acchow 8y ago
      Facebook is banned behind the Great Firewall. Regardless, what does this have to do with the discussion?

oh_sigh 8y ago

What is poverty in noncapitalist countries a result of?

brickcitymang 8y ago
Human greed lol or they're poor and nobody wants to help them because they're too busy covering their own asses. Basically there's enough resources in the world for nobody to live in poverty. It doesn't work because nobody's willing to make it work, which is just human nature of selfishness.
- brickcitymang 8y ago
  And I don't deny this nature in myself
  - apatters 8y ago
    It seems like you're lamenting what is basically an immutable biological trait without proposing any solutions. I don't think this adds much to the discussion.
    - brickcitymang 8y ago
      apatters, a discussion on the internet doesn't need solutions. If we loved everyone like we love ourselves, we would not let people go hungry, or suffer. I believe few people have achieved this level of transcendence, and it starts with knowing yourself. If somehow I could write a comment over the internet that can make you do some self-reflection I would. But I don't know what that comment is.
    - 3x 8y ago
      > immutable biological trait So now your two SUVs and white McMansion with a picket fence are an "immutable biological trait"?
      - apatters 8y ago

acchow 8y ago

There was no poverty before America?

brickcitymang 8y ago
Poverty itself can be caused by many things. But poverty in the most powerful country on Earth is not for a lack of resources.
- acchow 8y ago
  There was no poverty in Ancient Rome?
  - joesb 8y ago
    There was almost nothing you can consider modern science or technology in Ancient Rome. No matter how powerful Ancient Rome was, it wasn't even comparable to some third world country today.
  - brickcitymang 8y ago
    If poverty exists in a world where resources are plenty for everyone, the root cause is selfishness. Our inability to love others like we love ourselves.

skookumchuck 8y ago

The US went from subsistence farming in 1800 to superpower a hundred years later. Nearly the entire population that made up the US arrived penniless, and moved up into the middle class and higher. To say that American capitalism somehow "caused" poverty is contrary to about every statistic.

lasagnaphil 8y ago
And those people were able to rise by hurting the natives originally living there... no free lunch theorem strikes again
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  The same thing happened to the South American natives, but the immigrants there did not rise. Now they want to move north to the US. There's something different about the US - capitalism.