Does Capitalism create a higher standard of living?

[88m3]

Does Capitalism create a higher standard of living?

You tell me. You live in Detroit.

 

[Blackking]

You tell me. You live in Detroit.

ur right, someone like me who lives in extreme levels of poverty....
is capitalism the best system for my entire class of people?

 

[Mr. Somebody]

Capitalism creates a higher standard of living for some at the expense of others. I dont know see how everyone on the planet could practice capitalism without constantly going to war over prices and control of resources to keep the price at a certain level. If every nation practiced capitalism we'd be having world wars until one nation became subservient to another.

 

[88m3]

ur right, someone like me who lives in extreme levels of poverty....
is capitalism the best system for my entire class of people?

What I'm saying is look what capitalism is done for Detroit! I mean maybe things will turn around now that they've run all the downtrodden out. Detroit was a powerhouse that was raped by Capitalist and "Republican" core values. Someone made money but it wasn't the people that "should have", imo.

I don't know your exact situation, but I can speak for myself and say that "capitalism" has had adverse effects on my life and I'm relatively doing alright.

 

[DEAD7]

Vague question, but yes.


Thanks to capitalism what we used to know as poverty, in the past, has been wiped out.
Poverty in mostly capitalist, western countries is a matter of statistics, not actual lack of food, housing or medical care.
In Switzerland, one of the most capitalist countries on the planet, a "poor" person gets free housing, free healthcare and about over $1000 in cash every month.

 

[theworldismine13]

the question was standard of living, compared to the 7 billion on the planet, the poorest people in detroit have a high standard of living

 

[theworldismine13]

It appears that the answer to that is yes, but I don't think that it's more complicated than that.

people will point to so-called "Most capitalist" nations like Singapore and Hong Kong, and say " Look at the massive transformation!", "look at the their standard of living" "look at their GDP per capital!"

How much of that is really because of capitlism? You could look at China back during the "Red" years and observe a stark difference between Mainland China and its Capitalist Satellite nations like Hong Kong, Taiwan and Singapore. And yes, the difference between China and the other Chinese Nations has narrowed since the China switched to a market-based economy, which I guess would support the idea that Capitalism provides a higher standard of living.


But what about the other dozen nations in Asia? What about them? Why is there such a huge difference in the standard of living between them and the Chinese nations (forget about Korea and Japan for minute)? Is it really just because of economic systems?


For the answer, I ask this-- Who has the highest standard of living and the most wealth in Every nation in East Asia? It's always the Chinese. From Indonesia, to Cambodia, Mongolia, or Phillippines. The richest and wealthiest groups of people are always, without exception, exclusively Chinese. When they formed their own nation (like singapore), it seemed like a very high national standard of living would naturally follow. The story is the same in America, Chinese had higher levels of education, More wealth concentration than any other group (besides Indians), and some of the highest test scores. In America, they outperform the same ethnic south east asian ethnic groups that they seem to dominate in East Asia, so the overall National economic system doesn't really seem to matter.


So, I don't think Capitalism is the only driver of better standard of living. There is also Group-dynamic that seems to be ignored. Chinese culture and maybe Chinese people may just simply have an edge over other groups, and no economic system will ever change that. No free market system will equalize the differences between Chinese and South East Asians. I think this is same case with many other group differences. Capitalism will mostly benefit a few select groups, and that is what we have seen in history. Capitalism may lift everyone up, but it will definitely lift some people up more than others.


When I really think about it, these group differences present a very strong cases for socialism and welfare. I think certain groups are just handicapped by culture and history, and that they will never be able to compete with a group like the Chinese without 'help".

this post is irrelevant, for most of the 20th century china was a third world country and in a lot of ways it still is, the only reason it turned around was because china abandoned communism and embraced capitalism

 

[Type Username Here]

Vague question, but yes.

Thanks to capitalism what we used to know as poverty, in the past, has been wiped out.
Poverty in mostly capitalist, western countries is a matter of statistics, not actual lack of food, housing or medical care.
In Switzerland, one of the most capitalist countries on the planet, a "poor" person gets free housing, free healthcare and about over $1000 in cash every month.

This is honestly one of saddest things ever posted on here. You should be ashamed to even post such nonsense.

 

[Thoughts]

Good thread.

 

[DEAD7]

This is honestly one of saddest things ever posted on here. You should be ashamed to even post such nonsense.

Go on...

 

[NvrCMyNut]

a higher standard of living is more attainable in a capitalist country

 

[Poitier]

Capitalism is great for *creating* a middle class but not *maintaining* it without socialism

 

[DEAD7]

Capitalism is great for *creating* a middle class but not *maintaining* it without socialism

 

[acri1]

Capitalism certainly creates a higher standard of living for a percentage of a given population, but it also creates economic inequality and a persistent underclass. This is why it's important to have a good social safety net in a capitalist society.

And in other Econ 101 news...

 

[Blackking]

What I'm saying is look what capitalism is done for Detroit! I mean maybe things will turn around now that they've run all the downtrodden out. Detroit was a powerhouse that was raped by Capitalist and "Republican" core values. Someone made money but it wasn't the people that "should have", imo.

I don't know your exact situation, but I can speak for myself and say that "capitalism" has had adverse effects on my life and I'm relatively doing alright.

I'm doing good too, i was messing w u...

and i completely agree...


NTM, if individuals are successful that means nothing because groups are judged based on group success. and the low classes, especially black people seem to be stuck in a rut due to capitalist policies.