Ending poverty, especially extreme poverty

[otjm]

Trump reminds me of a used car sales person. His true aim is to fill the White House with big business persons who will control the government. But I do not see that as being a necessarily bad thing. Look at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and notice all the big business persons contributing large sums of money in it. With the help of the World Bank, it’s being predicted that extreme poverty will come to an end by 2030. And not only that but that many living in regular poverty will be lifted as well. If true, it looks like we will become a two-class society, with much unnecessary suffering associated with poverty ended. The key is for big business persons to truly value brotherly love.

Having known some used car salesmen, I do not agree with the analogy. I see him far more as someone who hears what a whole lot of people in the US are bothered by, I also see him as a business owner who understands that excesses, bloated staffing, and inefficiency are detriments, not benefits, and will select staffing by those who can perform for an end, rather than staffing with political ideologues.

One of the more interesting examples I would put forth is his recent talks with Romney, who roundly and soundly criticized Trump during the run-up. Trump knows Romney’s strengths, and appears to have put aside the commentary completely.

We will always have the poor among us, just as we will always have criminals among us. Human nature is still just that, and it is not going to be changed until after the Second Coming. We may move some out of poverty, and we may expand the middle class; or we may not. We also will always have an upper class (or whatever term you wish to apply to them). And some will show great generosity, and others will not. And we will have others like the Koch Brothers, just as we will have others like George Soros and Mr. Bloomberg.

I don’t buy the progressive agenda, and have always been a bit leery of the conservative one. This will be an interesting ride, but one which will, hopefully, give the next one to two generations a Supreme Court which will stop re-writing the Constitution, and have some sense of morality.

And I would hope that big business would come to see that their most expensive and most valuable asset is their workforce. Some do. Some don’t.

 

[Robert_Sock]

Having known some used car salesmen, I do not agree with the analogy. I see him far more as someone who hears what a whole lot of people in the US are bothered by, I also see him as a business owner who understands that excesses, bloated staffing, and inefficiency are detriments, not benefits, and will select staffing by those who can perform for an end, rather than staffing with political ideologues.

One of the more interesting examples I would put forth is his recent talks with Romney, who roundly and soundly criticized Trump during the run-up. Trump knows Romney’s strengths, and appears to have put aside the commentary completely.

We will always have the poor among us, just as we will always have criminals among us. Human nature is still just that, and it is not going to be changed until after the Second Coming. We may move some out of poverty, and we may expand the middle class; or we may not. We also will always have an upper class (or whatever term you wish to apply to them). And some will show great generosity, and others will not. And we will have others like the Koch Brothers, just as we will have others like George Soros and Mr. Bloomberg.

I don’t buy the progressive agenda, and have always been a bit leery of the conservative one. This will be an interesting ride, but one which will, hopefully, give the next one to two generations a Supreme Court which will stop re-writing the Constitution, and have some sense of morality.

And I would hope that big business would come to see that their most expensive and most valuable asset is their workforce. Some do. Some don’t.

The analogy is that America is going to move backward to old values and ideals when in fact we are going to keep moving forward with multiculturalism and a two-class society. I’m optimistic! Yes, there will be the poor always but not nearly as much as in the past, especially in respect to extreme poverty in the world as a whole.

 

[otjm]

The analogy is that America is going to move backward to old values and ideals when in fact we are going to keep moving forward with multiculturalism and a two-class society. I’m optimistic! Yes, there will be the poor always but not nearly as much as in the past, especially in respect to extreme poverty in the world as a whole.

here is such a split between the secular culture and the moral culture that I don;t see it healing; however, I do see a serious slowing down of the progressive secular agenda if we get some Supreme Court justices who are closer to the philosophy of Scalia.

I have no idea why you insist there will be a two-class society. We don’t have one now, although we have lost a large number of the middle class to the poor.

 

[JonNC]

=Regular Atheist;14338986]On the contrary, the abolition of exchange value would have to bring about equality, as with it wage labour and capital would have to be abolished.

Again, to the extent there is equality, socialism always ends up being an equality of poverty, except for the ruling class. And yes, there is always a ruling class.

Instead of some people having to work to survive while others live off of the labour of those who are working, people would work as they want and take whatever they want at anytime. Although the term makes little sense in an economy where exchange value doesn’t exist, everything would be “free” and nobody would be coerced into performing any labour.

So, on the one hand, you are complaining about people living off the work of others (the welfare state?), while on the hand, you are promoting a system where no one has to work, and can live off the labor of those who do.

No, communism has never existed. What the actual economic systems present in those countries you describe were is something different Marxists/communists will give different answers to - some will say they were socialist, others will say they were a transitional period towards socialism, others will say they were state capitalist. Whatever the case, none of those countries would claim to be communist. They would all to varying degrees claim to be in some way Leninist (something I would dispute), but a significant point of Leninism is the idea of a transitional society towards socialism, one in which a state still exists to regulate distribution of goods until there exists an abundance and to protect the socialist society from external forces, at least until socialism becomes an international phenomenon. In theory it was never imagined that this state should be anything but democratic, more so than a capitalist state since it would be a state run by the majority of the population rather than one designed to oppress the majority of the population. These countries would claim to still be in that period of development towards communism.

They are and were exactly what communism always is, always must be, totalitarian socialism. The fact is democracy, as you describe it here, is tyranny. Most tyrants speak highly of democracy. It is the reason why the founders, in their wisdom, opposed democracy, and did everything they could to avoid it. Democracy is the playground of tyrants.

I’d just like to clarify that I do not consider any of those countries to be a healthy example of this transitional society. For a variety of reasons that I’ll explain a bit more further down, socialism needs to be built in an advanced capitalist society, one in which the means through which we produce things allows us to produce enough goods to not leave much of the population wanting, and to accomplish this needs to spread internationally. If society cannot produce enough objects to at least satisfy everyone, this will lead to social antagonisms between those who have things and those who don’t. In the USSR the low productive output of the country meant that these antagonisms were particularly pronounced, which meant that a strong, undemocratic bureaucracy formed in order to maintain the country and manage these antagonisms. This is obviously a terrible thing, but if socialism were to be implemented on a world scale in today’s economy this would almost certainly not be an issue. The productive capability of the modern economy is remarkable, the only thing holding us back is the economic system we have.

You may not consider them a healthy example of a transitional society, but they are a stellar example of socialism always becomes.

Not at all. The definitions I am using are the older definitions, and the idea that socialism refers to welfare capitalism is a modern use of the term while the conflation of it with a scary dystopia where the government owns and controls everything is just nonsense. Marx and other early socialist thinkers used the term socialism and communism interchangeably, and communism always referred to the stateless, classless society I described.

It isn’t nonsense. It is reality. Socialism always ends up being control of the means of production by a dictatorial regime.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=Regular Atheist;14339106]I apologize for the length of these replies. I’ll stop posting now, and if you’re still interested I’ll continue after you reply. Honestly I recommend you read some literature from some socialist theorists if you’re interested, it’s good stuff. Sorry that some of these answers are long and complex, but I don’t see an easier way to give them, and even then I am a bit unsatisfied with many of them.

I’m enjoying the dialogue.

There is certainly a difference between alienated and unalienated labour. I may enjoy gardening as a hobby because it is unalienating labour. I enjoy it, see it as a way to express myself, and can take pride in the plants I grow. I don’t get that same experience with a job that I am coerced into doing simply for the money.

I’m not talking about a hobby. I’m talking about employment, or entrepreneurial capitalism. I’ve been involved in both, and have always made choices to maximize my enjoyment. I also consider it an obligation to, as much as possible, not be a burfen on society as a whole.

This is somewhat reductionist, but yes! I already explained why a socialist economy needs to have a certain productive capability earlier, but Marx also had a particular analysis of history. He argued that the main force for societal change is material factors, the economy, and this influences the rest of society. For Marx, changes in the way humans produce the things we need to survive would bring about new forms of society. Contradictions and antagonisms would develop in the economy which would lead to a new mode of production, new economic relations between people in society. For example, the transition from feudalism to capitalism involved the rise of a new property owning class, the bourgeoisie, which came into conflict with the old feudal relations. The contradictions between these two relations led to the abolition of the old mode of production and the creation of capitalism, which also has its own internal contradictions. The conflict between these contradictions is essential to produce a socialist society, and since these contradictions only exist within capitalism, capitalism had to exist before socialism could. These contradictions are those between wage labour and capital, and will ultimately result in some kind of revolution that will overturn capitalism and create a society without these contradictions.

And I would argue that if capitalism is the most successful system of creating the greatest amount of wealth for the greatest number of people, it makes no sense to shift to socialism, which creates the greatest amount of poverty for the greatest number of people, excluding the ruling class, of course.

Such a society has never existed, but that doesn’t mean we can’t anticipate it from looking at the problems inherent within capitalism.

We can only hope that we do not become so decadent, or so lacking in individual compassion for those truly in need, that the forces of totalitarian or authoritarian socialism can prevail.

Jon

 

[Theo520]

I don’t see how you can say Venezuela isn’t socialist with a straight face.

Both countries have issues with corruption because it is part of human nature, this is why it exists under all forms of governance.

Leveraging market forces combined with a strong rule of law, and democratic elections is the best way to combat corruption.

The problems Venezuela is faced with are different to those of Nigeria, but it’s important to understand that Venezuela isn’t socialist and its problems are the result of the capitalist market. Increased spending in public welfare based on the value of a certain commodity is great until the value of that commodity plummets. Chavez also did ridiculous things like set controls on prices while leaving the economy in private hands. The Venezuelan people should have seized the economy for themselves, and placed it entirely in public control.

The Nigerian government is undoubtedly corrupt, but this is a problem of capitalism. Countries like Nigeria are exploited by western capitalists, and are basically puppets of them. If the Nigerian government decided to use the oil wealth to improve the lives of their own people, there would be huge international backlash, as there was when countries like Cuba nationalized foreign oil refineries.

Crony capitalism is something that exists directly as a result of capitalism, not despite it. It is not a separate beast to normal capitalism. If you allow capital to accumulate in fewer and fewer hands then monopolies are going to develop, and these monopolies are going to seek support from the state. The only way to prevent this would be to try to limit the accumulation of capital, but of course this would contradict the principles of the free market.

 

[Robert_Sock]

here is such a split between the secular culture and the moral culture that I don;t see it healing; however, I do see a serious slowing down of the progressive secular agenda if we get some Supreme Court justices who are closer to the philosophy of Scalia.

I have no idea why you insist there will be a two-class society. We don’t have one now, although we have lost a large number of the middle class to the poor.

If we are to elevate those living in poverty and downsize the middle-class, which I believe we will, we will have two classes.

 

[BobCatholic]

For example, I understand that Bill Gates donated half his wealth to fight extreme poverty.

Which he doesn’t do. He lays off people here so he can use the increase stock price funding his foundation to help other people in third world countries.

He increases poverty here so to decrease it elsewhere. Net-net is zero, or negative - he is making the world worse.

 

[RCinMT]

Which he doesn’t do. He lays off people here so he can use the increase stock price funding his foundation to help other people in third world countries.

He increases poverty here so to decrease it elsewhere. Net-net is zero, or negative - he is making the world worse.

Even better, he attaches seemingly peripheral provisions to his aid such as population control measures like birth control and abortion. He’s in partnership with Soros and others and is certainly hostile toward religion.

 

[otjm]

If we are to elevate those living in poverty and downsize the middle-class, which I believe we will, we will have two classes.

okay, I see where you are on the matter. That started decades ago when we started shipping jobs and factories off to Mexico; and they got hit when those factories moved from Mexico to Asia.

I doubt that we will lose the middle class, as we still have professionals and skilled workers; but there clearly has been a drop.

 

[abinjoy]

Which he doesn’t do. He lays off people here so he can use the increase stock price funding his foundation to help other people in third world countries.

He increases poverty here so to decrease it elsewhere. Net-net is zero, or negative - he is making the world worse.

While he lays off I believe he pays a huge severance package too
A fresh engineering grad in MS gets a 6 digit salary I guess. i guess they need to save money

 

[Theo520]

Which he doesn’t do. He lays off people here so he can use the increase stock price funding his foundation to help other people in third world countries.

He increases poverty here so to decrease it elsewhere. Net-net is zero, or negative - he is making the world worse.

You are confused on this, Bill no longer runs Microsoft and has significantly diversified his investments.

 

[BobCatholic]

While he lays off I believe he pays a huge severance package too
A fresh engineering grad in MS gets a 6 digit salary I guess. i guess they need to save money

Where did you get the idea he even paid severance?
Even if he did pay it, where did you get the idea one can live on a severance package for the rest of their lives?

A fresh engineering grad gets 6 figures in Silicon Valley, not at M$ because they’re not located there. Silicon valley cost of living is so ridiculous, people making $100K are forced to live in their cars due to not being able to afford the ridiculous rents.

 

[BobCatholic]

You are confused on this, Bill no longer runs Microsoft and has significantly diversified his investments.

Billy boy is the largest shareholder of M$. When he “diversified” he did so by donating his stock to a foundation that…he runs!

Do you think he has zero influence on the management’s decisions? That’s not true.

He runs M$ because he still owns a lot of it, directly through his stock holdings, and indirectly through his foundation’s stock holdings.

Layoffs cause the stock price to rise, and that means more money for his foundation. He funds his foundation by putting people into poverty through layoffs.

 

[otjm]

Billy boy is the largest shareholder of M$. When he “diversified” he did so by donating his stock to a foundation that…he runs!

Do you think he has zero influence on the management’s decisions? That’s not true.

He runs M$ because he still owns a lot of it, directly through his stock holdings, and indirectly through his foundation’s stock holdings.

Layoffs cause the stock price to rise, and that means more money for his foundation. He funds his foundation by putting people into poverty through layoffs.

Not all who are laid off are in poverty - people do get different jobs. And one might presume that those who work for Microsoft have skill sets which have value in the market place. Those who have value generally will obtain another position in a different company before those without the same skill sets applying for the same jobs.

Anyone who knows more than a scintilla of business administration and economics knows that when things are “fat” there are hiring binges, and when things are "slim, there are layoffs. and generally, it is either a “last in, first out” approach or a culling of those who don’t perform, or a combination of the two.

On the other hand, there are some people who seem to feel that a job is a God-given right, whether or not one has the necessary skills, or whether or not the one hired is actually providing some benefit to the employer. They are in the company of people who feel that a person with no skill and no employment history should have a living wage salary in a position which does not produce the work results which is commensurate to their pay. And please don’t respond with the vineyard owner who gave full pay to those who worked for one hour - it was a parable, not a discussion of business economics.

I was laid off in the third round of pink slips during the market bottoming in 2008 as the company I was working for was taken down by the housing market. 6 months later I had another job in the same industry, with a lower salary but including housing - thus with benefits bringing me up effectively with about an $8,000 increase. From that job, two and a half years later, I went to another position with about an 8% increase.

It may be shocking to some people, but many businesses use a downturn to lay off people who do not have the requisite skill set, and those who do not have the requisite work ethic - the latter being an issue which, having spoken with numerous employers and mangers, seems to be more and more pronounced among the millennials (although certainly not limited to them).

The United States has a problem, and that is that since the crash of 2008, we have not seen a significant increase in medium and higher paid jobs. Raising the minimum wage to $15 (actual costs of that salary, without benefits varies but is in the range of 7 to 8%) isn’t going to cure the problem. Someone who needs to support a family needs a job somewhat advanced beyond running the automated cash box at the front counter) isn’t going to solve the problem.

 

[SuperLuigi]

=Regular Atheist;14333210]Socialism/communism does end “the natural swings in economics”, because the purpose of it is to abolish exchange value entirely.

Which resorts to what? A BC style bartering system?

The crises that capitalism finds itself in are the result of the contradictions found between wage labour and capital, things that can only exist as long as exchange value does, and are not natural or unavoidable things.

These crises also help to enforce artificial scarcity, which is what capitalism essentially is -

The market actually does a good job with setting fair wages. It’s government involvement that has decreased the standard of living.

under capitalism you can’t produce more than the market can consume.

Yes you can. But there isn’t much incentive to.

Communism is a stateless, classless society without any kind of market, where people take whatever they want at anytime and contribute whatever they need. In such a society, exchange value does not exist and so the market laws that lead to these “natural swings” also wouldn’t.

Communism by definition requires the enforcement of the state and goes against natural law.

There is no prosperity or any commerce for that matter without the free market.

Your last statement is only true if you radially redefine what it means to be capitalist. As I have said, look at the poorest in capitalist Nigeria.

They are poor because of government corruption, not capitalism.

And look at the richest socialist countries. Even parts of the USSR resorted to cannibalism because that caring and efficient government confiscated most of the food supply and squandered it.

But this does not constitute actual control over my labour. What I can or can’t do with my labour is still dictated to me, and I have no control or ownership over the things I produce. Under capitalism, I only work in order to remain alive. I am alive because I work, I do not choose to work because I am alive. It is easy to imagine a mode of production where I work purely out of choice and free from any kind of external pressure to survive.

People do not work just to survive; they work for prosperity and good quality of life.

Under capitalism, labour is never really voluntary. You will find that for the vast majority of people life begins as soon as their labour ends, and they take no pleasure in their work but simply do it to survive.

That would be both socialism and communism, not capitalism.

Yes, I agree that the “socialism” of the 20th century was repugnant, but that’s not what I’m arguing for. That isn’t what people like Marx were arguing for. The 1917 revolutions failed because they tried to build socialism in a backwards and isolated country. If socialism had quickly become international, things would not nearly have been so bleak. There were attempts at revolution in advanced countries such as Germany in 1919. If they had succeeded we most likely would not be living in a capitalist world.

Ah, yes, the “we haven’t tried the communism/socialism in my exact manner so it can still, no really it can honest!” line.

Shark Tank is a silly reality show where millionaires exploit people with easily marketable ideas. It certainly doesn’t represent the majority of invest in new technology in capitalist countries. Capitalists are remarkably short-sighted, and won’t invest in important technology if it won’t give them a profit in the short-term.

Those people are adults who enter into a legal contract. And the best capitalists are not short-sighted. Steve Jobs, for instance, envisioned products that people didn’t even know they wanted and Apple made a lot of money and hired a lot of people.

As Bill Gates pointed out in that article, this is why the public sector tends to lead the way in investing in world-changing technology, such as renewable energy.

Bill Gates is a billionaire who succeeded only because of capitalism and has the disposable income to waste on unsustainable green projects.

Public funding for renewable energy has led to 20%+ unemployment in Spain and many EU nations are taking hard look at getting out of the business because it doesn’t work.

Capitalists would rather invest billions in producing a slightly different smart phone, something that will easily produce them a profit. This is very wasteful, and it’s easy to see how a socialist economy could better utilize the time and resources that go into developing useless technology.

It would not. If that were true, Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela would be Utopian states.

The reason why the idea of central planning doesn’t work is because government as an institution of man is inherently corrupt. There is no incentive for the government to be efficient with resources because they don’t have to compete against anyone.

Governments don’t, no, but socialism isn’t just where the government controls the economy. It is a society where everyone controls the economy.

Incorrect and impossible, since not everyone can be the government.

The means of production are held in common by all. The point isn’t to just maintain the rules of the capitalist market economy but have the economy owned by the state. The point is to abolish the capitalist market entirely, to abolish exchange value, capital and wage labor.

Which leads to equal poverty for the masses and a few elite rich as we have seen over and over and will continue to see wherever it is implemented no matter how badly you wish it to be otherwise.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Crony capitalism happens as a result of too much power being in the hands of too few. It happens in centralized governmental systems. It is far more closely akin to socialism than to free market capitalism. The only way to prevent crony capitalism is to limit the accumulation of government power.

Indeed! As Peter Schiff notes “crony capitalism isn’t really capitalism because it socializes the losses while privatizing the profits”.

 

[Theo520]

No, Balmer is the largest shareholder and the day to day operation is run by Nadella, the third largest shareholder.

Gates doesn’t involve himself in management anymore, he tried that and it didn’t work well.

Billy boy is the largest shareholder of M$. When he “diversified” he did so by donating his stock to a foundation that…he runs!

Do you think he has zero influence on the management’s decisions? That’s not true.

He runs M$ because he still owns a lot of it, directly through his stock holdings, and indirectly through his foundation’s stock holdings.

Layoffs cause the stock price to rise, and that means more money for his foundation. He funds his foundation by putting people into poverty through layoffs.

 

[BobCatholic]

Not all who are laid off are in poverty - people do get different jobs.

Not those who are labeled discouraged workers. People do get laid off and never find another job again. Age discrimination is rampant in tech, doesn’t matter the skillset.

It also assumes that there are jobs in those fields - with other companies laying off people, that’s not happening either.

And one might presume that those who work for Microsoft have skill sets which have value in the market place.

That also assumes nobody else is laying off other people.

Those who have value generally will obtain another position in a different company before those without the same skill sets applying for the same jobs.

And also assumes nobody is discriminating against people for being out of work. There are recruiters who hype “passive candidates” (who have jobs) as “the best of the best” - when in reality, they’re just lucky to be employed and haven’t been laid off yet.

Anyone who knows more than a scintilla of business administration and economics knows that when things are “fat” there are hiring binges, and when things are "slim, there are layoffs. and generally, it is either a “last in, first out” approach or a culling of those who don’t perform, or a combination of the two.

Upper management is responsible for their actions, and they get paid big bucks to do so.
When they make mistakes in their forecasts and decision making, it is wrong to punish the rank and file who follow their orders by laying them off. Layoffs are proof that upper management are not responsible for their actions. The CEO who announces layoffs automatically should lose any bonus check because such an announcement is a prima facie case that the CEO has bad performance.

On the other hand, there are some people who seem to feel that a job is a God-given right, whether or not one has the necessary skills, or whether or not the one hired is actually providing some benefit to the employer. They are in the company of people who feel that a person with no skill and no employment history should have a living wage salary in a position which does not produce the work results which is commensurate to their pay.

What about what really happens in the job market? Someone gets laid off. They go back to school and retool, learn new skills. Then they apply and get rejected for not having experience in the new field. So, what did they do wrong?

The United States has a problem, and that is that since the crash of 2008, we have not seen a significant increase in medium and higher paid jobs.

We lost millions of middle class level jobs and above - high paying jobs. In the “wreckovery” we have gained back half of those jobs, and the other half are poor paying jobs that don’t give people the chance to move up.

What do you think happened to those who used to be middle class and couldn’t find a middle class job? They’re either doing these low paying jobs despite having great skill sets because jobs at their level do not exist, or they’re discouraged workers.

So, don’t go around acting like the workers are to blame for things, when in reality, the workers bear the disproportionate share of responsibility but no share in the rewards.

 

[BobCatholic]

No, Balmer is the largest shareholder and the day to day operation is run by Nadella, the third largest shareholder.

Gates doesn’t involve himself in management anymore, he tried that and it didn’t work well.

Hello?

Bill Gates’s personal holdings plus the shares controlled by the foundation he controls = the largest shareholder.

It is control over the shares that matter, not ownership of shares. Ballmer personally owns more than Bill Gates own shares. Same thing as Nadella. But Gates’ personal plus foundation shares are more than either.