Show of HandsShow of Hands


Terms of Use | Privacy Policy
VotinGeorgian December 11th, 2015 11:49am

Which system, if properly applied, lifts more people out of poverty? (A) Free Market Capitalism or (B) Federally Managed Wealth Redistribution?

(A) (B)
2 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

duey in a fools paradise
12/11/15 11:55 am

It's a sad day in this country that this question even comes up. There are just so many brainwashed little socialists coming out of the government education centers that have been fed this line of crap it's heartbreaking. I get it if you're 25 or younger probably don't remember what a great economy is like in this country. People buying cars, homes, putting their kids through college, great vacations and on and on. Good luck all you youngsters waiting for that job as President of a big company with all your experience!

Reply
smithy0013
12/11/15 8:22 am

Free market capitalism does less to lift people out of poverty due to the fact that returns on investment scale linearly with the amount invested thus increasing wealth disparity.

Reply
VotinGeorgian
12/11/15 8:28 am

That's an absurd line of reason.
Every example of a free market resulted in a capable middle class.

Furthermore, the middle class forms from the impoverished, not from a downgraded elite.

Considering that Western Free Market nations boast a massive middle-class, I fail to see your ideologically skewed idea as sound.

smithy0013
12/11/15 8:51 am

I never said that a middle class wouldn't exist in a free market. My statement implies that the poor are not lifted out of poverty without regulations and that the middle class will tend to shrink over time in a completely free market

VotinGeorgian
12/11/15 8:53 am

The poor are not lifted out of poverty without regulations?
Elaborate.

I would counter argue that a shrinking middle class is due to over-regulation and cronyism.

catpillow Florida West Coast
12/11/15 7:43 am

Free market capitalism works well against poverty if there is an even playing field. It's not so great when small businesses have to compete against multinational conglomerates. Wealth redistribution shouldn't be necessary for anyone other than those who are unable to work, so long as opportunities for people to support themselves are available (work for a fair wage or start businesses).

Reply
VotinGeorgian
12/11/15 7:48 am

Great insight. I specifically added "if properly applied" to eliminate crony capitalism as the criteria for rejection. Most people think Capitalism is synonymous with corruption but reject the idea that wealth redistribution is corrupted.

catpillow Florida West Coast
12/11/15 7:56 am

Yep, being "properly applied" makes all the difference.

GlockMan1 Alabama
12/11/15 6:25 am

Why did you not name the B category SOCIALISM since you named the A category CAPITALISM?

Reply
VotinGeorgian
12/11/15 6:33 am

Because Wealth Redistribution is not exclusive to Socialism and the question is focused on alleviation of poverty only.

GlockMan1 Alabama
12/11/15 6:37 am

Christ spoke about poverty and poor people 2000 years ago. No one and no federal program can end poverty. Our own WAR IN POVERTY started under LBJ has done little to end poverty despite the BILLIONS thrown at it.

VotinGeorgian
12/11/15 6:43 am

Not suggesting either is the answer. Just inquiring which is more proficient at alleviating poverty.

Give a man a fish, or teach a man to fish scenario.

Bobnpt The Ocean State
12/11/15 5:36 am

Go back to the late 19th and early 20th Century and you can see that free market capitalism drives a huge poverty class. The current system perpetuates it. So, neither system really solves the problem.

Reply