It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Capitalism vs. Poverty: What are your views?

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:01 PM
link   
I'm a daily visitor to the website Listverse. Daily they have a random list about anything. A while back they featured two list. One detailing the benefits of Capitalism and the other listed reasons why to embrace poverty. Now many of you will think I'm crazy for asking this question. Since nothing can beat Capitalism in the real world and embracing poverty will be suicide. I would like anyone to go over the list. Chose the list which influenced you to agree with the most. Tell everyone why you chose that list.
Top 10 good reasons to embrace poverty
Top 10 greatest bennifits of capitalism

This quote by Ayn Rand explains my decision. I will leave it up to the user to decode my choice.

Ask yourself whether the dream of heaven and greatness should be waiting for us in our graves – or whether it should be ours here and now and on this earth.

Source for quote




posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:06 PM
link   
As long as we are under a -money- system, I can tell you that being poor under capitalism, is hell on earth. Being poor is like being in jail. While dead. In a box. Nailed shut. It s**ks. Big Time.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by FeraVerto
 


Well, I would like to point out a serious problem with your post.

Capitalism is not the opposite of poverty. They are not "vs" one another. In capitalism you almost always also find poverty. Poverty is not an economic system, its the result of something IN an economic system.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Illusionsaregrander
 


Beat me to it.

Anyways, many of the benefits listed on the poverty list simply dont make sense in real world applications. Most people who embrace poverty have no drive and are not going to do things like live a healthy lifestyle or feel great about themselves. My .02.



posted on Apr, 15 2011 @ 11:59 PM
link   
I like capitalism.

When I was young my family was upper middle class and then some things happened and my dad was sent to prison as a scapegoat for his uncle.

We then was dirt poor and stayed that way for a long time. I then graduated hs and worked very hard to have a comfortable lifestyle. Sometimes I had to work two jobs seven days a week, but I did it and it payed off. A lot of people don't have that drive and they stay poor.

I am a HUGE Believer of you get what you put in. Capitalism requires you to put in hard work in order for it to pay off and I'm fine with that.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 12:10 AM
link   
Our ancestors or the people that came before had slaved and died basically in order to acheive what we have now...robotics, industrialization, technologies that are beyond what they could ever dream which in turn cut out alot of necessary labor.

This idea that everyone should keep producing, keep making things to be thrown away, used up, torn down, rebuilt again etc. Is entirely wasteful. But yet you have to keep these jobs or you lose everything...even though these jobs are not needed for anything more then to keep a dead system alive while plundering the Earth bare.

We have more people then we have jobs..which means...we will force many into poverty, we will kill off a good part of population one way or another, we will become a police state, we will be socialist/communist (which truly can only exist pure in a democracy), or we will have a dark age where chaos runs rampant and it will be a wilder west for everyone.

Capitalism should not replace government, it was a monetary system...yet it has built a globalist aristocracy a supergovernment of the upper class so to speak which knows no boundaries.

To say its superior, well only if you favour despotism...and want to keep or be yourself a serf.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 01:00 AM
link   
reply to post by FeraVerto
 


Since you quoted the immortal smokey goddess of reason Im assuming this is some sort of trick question! Was expecting the same ol rehashed ATS quasi marxist rant based on the flawed assumtion that all profit comes at the expense of others.



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:31 PM
link   
Let's boil it down. As Leonard Knight says, "Don't get complicated, keep it simple!"

Well, simply put I see two viable options.
One, we have a monetary system. A system which oozes with potential to be exploited, & which is exploited day in day out. The suffering it has inflicted is... incalculable. There is a small percentage of people who's wealth could keep every single human being on this earth in comfort, perpetually. Yet, a large percentage must suffer, just because.. Because for extreme wealth to exists, so must extreme poverty. Extreme suffering. Extreme actions. Extreme hatred.

Now consider a second option. An option where a 3'x6' piece of paper does not determine your worth. Where you are worth everything & nothing all in equal measure. An option that allows not for hatred & intolerance over lost pieces of paper, but allows us to love one another, no strings attached, they don't exist here. Allows us to see one another for what we truly are; one

On second thought, I only see one option.
edit on 16-4-2011 by WilhelmFink because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 16 2011 @ 11:49 PM
link   
Obviously there are significant problems with ALL systems, whether they be so called 'capitalism' or so called 'communism', one such problem is that those who make it to the top or run the system will eventually buy the favors of those who make the rules distorting any semblence of a 'free market'.

I personally think it is fair to a point to have a system that allows for those who choose to put more effort and work into worthwhile goals to possibly get a bit more of rewards, but 'monopolism' turns this on it's head and eventually allows those who put out even less productive work to buy special favors.

By the creation of monopolies by established entrenced interests, those others who offer even better ideas and methods and products are locked out of the marketplace and can't compete because the playing field has been so distorted.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:08 AM
link   
Hey, do you all think the -ultimate- -root- of this whole entire have-have not problem is access to "free energy"? I was imagining what would happen everywhere instantly, if every single individual on the planet recieved, (if they wanted it) some sort of device (from my imagination) that powered everything you could. You could drag a big cardboard box or tent or camper, trailer, etc, into the middle of the Grand Canyon, for example, and have AC, electric stove, electric heat, big screen TV, all the lights and lamps you want, your computer stuff, and even charge your electric car, if you had one.
Any thoughts on this theory?



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
reply to post by FeraVerto
 


Poverty is NOT the opposite of capitalism. Capitalism is the belief in the sanctity and sacredness of dollar bills or acquisition of stuff. That is a very impoverished view of fulfillment, if you ask me. Socialism is the belief in the sanctity and sacredness of social relationships. I'd say a bit higher up on the scale of spiritual development.
Poverty is contextual. It only means something in relationship to the larger social/political/economic framework within which one is operating. So, the question of capitalism versus poverty is a mixed metaphor and anyone with any discernment could see through the language trickery, steering folks into a belief that the issue is capitalism versus poverty, rather than capitalism versus other ideological/philosophical forms of belief and activity.

Capitalism has forced us all into the pursuit of death, imprisonment and slavery. It is an unsustainable and perverted way of being in the world and, if, because I refuse to participate in that I live in "poverty," I accept the label with relish. We really have to start taking back our control of language, folks. Otherwise, we will continually be manipulated by it and those who convolute it in this way.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 11:42 AM
link   
Well, I don't think there is an answer to the question of how we should govern our social finaces. I think it is a process of evolution.

Clearly Capitalism has produced a major advancement in technologies, business, wealth production and general life style. However it's success brings with it problems. In equitable valuation, destructive greed, severe social stratification.

We have a good thing going, but the details are poorly thought out and the human attitude is disrupting the wider benefits of the philosophy.

I think the question becomes one of future verses present. Do we become the generations that see the wisdom in sharing the benefits of equitable distribution, going forward or do we pass on the legacy of corruption and greed that has been passed to us?

We can't all be millionaires with yachts, but we can have a more comfortable stable life and the guy that would have made 500 million but only got 100, will be just fine. The corporation that only netted 2 billion, instead of 3, will be just fine...We aren't far from regaining succes, we just lack the honor and will to set new details.



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 12:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
Hey, do you all think the -ultimate- -root- of this whole entire have-have not problem is access to "free energy"? I was imagining what would happen everywhere instantly, if every single individual on the planet recieved, (if they wanted it) some sort of device (from my imagination) that powered everything you could. You could drag a big cardboard box or tent or camper, trailer, etc, into the middle of the Grand Canyon, for example, and have AC, electric stove, electric heat, big screen TV, all the lights and lamps you want, your computer stuff, and even charge your electric car, if you had one.
Any thoughts on this theory?


While I doubt you could run the whole house in the canyon via tesla coils or anything like that.. there are some good DC sources that can be utilized ..

For the OP .. yea .. NWO is not coming .. its here.

But You, Me .. ATS members and others have seen this coming for a long time..

Now.. Can you suggest another way out of the current conditions ? ..

Is there a way out ..?? Only one way I can think of things better is a OWG .. NWO ..

Im not suggesting that this NWO is the way some make it out to be..but I think NWO must happen to bring peace..and order ..

Look..I work for a set amount ( lets call it 15 bucks/hr ) but the CO hires me out at 100/hr.

Now tell me thats not a calculated trend that keeps the market and profits up ( you mean to tell me that my day billing about 7/hrs @ 100/hr + materials is good for the sum of humanity ).

Capitolism/caniballism is good right ?

Oh..its the Going rate..my A$$ .. oh and you have to have to retain a lawyer for 5000 just to rep you on your Constitutional rights .. LOL..

Get it together guys..buy a 10$ ( cost ) HDMI cable 9' for 80 bucks !!

Its all screwed up..



posted on Apr, 17 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by simone50m
Hey, do you all think the -ultimate- -root- of this whole entire have-have not problem is access to "free energy"? I was imagining what would happen everywhere instantly, if every single individual on the planet recieved, (if they wanted it) some sort of device (from my imagination) that powered everything you could. You could drag a big cardboard box or tent or camper, trailer, etc, into the middle of the Grand Canyon, for example, and have AC, electric stove, electric heat, big screen TV, all the lights and lamps you want, your computer stuff, and even charge your electric car, if you had one.
Any thoughts on this theory?


If I recall right, I seem to remember some totalitarian 'globalist' quote that 'free energy', or the ability of people to produce their own energy would be one of the worst things that could happen to the planet.

I think some people may fall for the mistaken notion that the 'string pullers' are more concerned with the fate of the planet than with losing their control over the masses.

Those at the top of the pyramid will NEVER willingly relinquish their death grip over a subservient population even if it means bringing down the entire world in the process, even while hiding behind just the opposite.

And from everything I gather they are in the process of doing exactly that right at this very moment.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 06:52 PM
link   
An answer to the economic situation is as follows

Both capitalism and communism are ways which ruin society. What we should do is establish economically but not socially a state where everything is shared but this would be regulated by citizens and not the government but sometimes voluntary inequality must be necessary in order to help the very poor and if someone refuses to help the poor he shouldn't be forced to by the welfare government programs he should be shown the benefits of generosity and be persuaded to donate by a citizen .

May peace and godliness reign .



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 07:55 PM
link   
Capitalisim requires the exploitation of another.
Poverty does not.

Which would you choose?

The high tech toys are just not that important to me.



posted on Jul, 22 2011 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Both suck.
If I had my choice...death...rather be dead than impoverished or someones whipping b****. But alas I will be for as long as Earth will have me and when I cross over someone is getting an A** whooping for sending me to this god awful primitive Junk rock!!!!



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join