Historically speaking, why is it so difficult to eradicate poverty? We tried communism...

Sometimes I get sad that I'm the dumbest person on campus at Yale, so I come here to feel better about myself. Thank you user.

It's difficult because right now, lots of countries are still industrializing. When that happens, wealth disparity is huge as there aren't a lot of laws to protect the working class, but the rise of industry allows for key industrialists to make a lot of money. This happened in the UK, and in the US for instance. Give the poor countries of the world another 4-5 decades and wealth disparity will decline dramatically. However, poverty is inevitable because unemployment is a natural part of economics.In that case, the reason why poverty is such a pain to stamp out would be "tough shit"

You mean socialism. Communism is a formless meme. I have never read any convincing account of how it could possibly work. It's basically always something like the spontaneous masses will just magically make it work and culture will magically shifts in a way that is compatible with a communist society.

You have to think out of the box. Eradicating poverty doesn't only entail doling out alms. In the case where ineptness leads to poverty we may be able to use genetic engineering to make it disappear in the future.

alms never would have been a viable way to solve poverty... You don't need to even make a case against it. Only faggots and idiots would believe otherwise

That's wrong, though. Poverty at the extreme side is a lack of access to basic necessities, like food, water, shelter, and sanitation. It doesn't matter how rich your country is if you can't afford food. Relative poverty is a level at which it's practically impossible to advance in the world because all your time is spent earning just enough money to not die. Even if poor people have access now to technology that didn't exist a hundred years ago, that doesn't mean that their lives are more stable or enjoyable than a middle class family of the past.

>poor people are poor because they're inferior
Kill you're are self.

>but wh-wh-what ifs!

Not an argument

>Associating Nationak Socialism with imperialism.

I didn't know Brits were National Socialists.

>is there a better way?

Unironically national socialism.

>Poverty at the extreme side is a lack of access to basic necessities, like food, water, shelter, and sanitation.
Fewer people than ever before are this poor. In the West this type of poverty has been eliminated.
If you look at somewhere like India or China, and how they have developed in a short period of time, it's not a big stretch of the imagination to think maybe the extreme destitution you describe could be eradicated in a few decades like smallpox.

poor guy in the US here, live below the poverty line. I live extremely well, idk why people think being poor in the US is anything like actually being poor

>Relative poverty is a level at which it's practically impossible to advance in the world because all your time is spent earning just enough money to not die.
Not everyone can be rich you retard, we still need laborers and plebs to do our dirty work for us. At least a poor person in the US can play video games and watch TV, because for most of human history life was just "earning just enough money to not die".

And yes, some people are inferior and deserve to be poor.

I hope you don't vote, or raise children.

Alright, explain to me how your perfect, infallible version of National Socialism is to work.

>No one in the US lacks access to food or shelter
I guess it's easy to think that when you've never had to worry about those things yourself.

t. college liberal who has no experience with the real world

>poverty erradicated in the West
What the fuck are you talking about? Look at some demographics before saying stupid shit like that. (I'm sure you can pull up some small country like Switzerland but I assure you poverty in America, Spain and any big country still exists)
Ignoring the bait last sentence of your post...
>At least a poor person in the US can play video games and watch TV
>Homeless people don't exist

Homeless people are mentally ill and/or drug addicts. Normal people in the YS have no trouble getting by.

Just study history you retard. Did you forget what board you are on?

Capitalism is literally solving poverty as we speak.
>one person's gain is another person's loss
oh, this is just a bait thread.

I think people in general are the problem. Our future will be much more distopian than anything that could've resulted from the cold war going hot. A nuclear armageddon putting humanity into a new dark age would've have led humanity to learn from it's mistakes that led to the collapse of civilization. In the beginning of the societal collapse artificial scarcity would be replaced with actual scarcity. Only those with the knowledge, skill and will to would survive. Humanity would return to it's most primal state but also it's most formative state. The ruins of civilization would hopefully make humanity stronger and learn from the mistakes of their ancestors or die trying.

>one person's gain is another person's loss
>oh, this is just a bait thread.

That's true though.

youtube.com/watch?v=1fod_ADpgVo

>the absolute poverty is defined as living with less than $1.25 a day

So if I make $38.75/mo in America, I'm not poor? "The absolute poverty" should be defined as "making less money than it costs for access to housing, food, water, and medicine."

Using this definition of "the absolute poverty," capitalism has not solved this at all. In fact, over the decades, it's exacerbated it.

Some will spend the food stamps responsibly, but in terms of totally eradicating poverty there will always be some who won't. There are also other problems. Institutions become dysfunctional with abusive staff. Social workers don't do their jobs properly. The projects become crime ridden. People like you think spending on safe spaces in universities is more important than homeless shelters. When your fruity ideals fail you come up with excuses to save face because your ego is more important than genuinely solving poverty. Even if you do accept constructive criticism, few others will see it the same way so your efforts will likely change nothing rather like what has just happened here with you all getting posterior peeved by facts and logic.

Statistically insignificant sample. A few hundred thousand individuals is nothing when the overall global poverty levels are decreasing

How poor are you senpai?

usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2014/12/11/outsourcing-to-china-cost-us-32-million-jobs-since-2001

>Historically speaking, why is it so difficult to eradicate poverty?
It's not, rich people just get butthurt when you tell them they're only allowed to be a million times richer than a normal person instead of a billion times richer. The solution to poverty in the US:

>Universal basic income of 80% FPL ($9500/yr)
>Total program cost 2.85T
>Eliminate social security, unemployment, etc (total cost 1.35T)
>Net cost 1.5T

>Single payer healthcare system to bring healthcare costs in line with other OECD countries
>Net cost -1.44T

>Flat tax at 25% of all income (earned and unearned, but not including universal basic income)
>Business profit tax equal to 25% of profits after all expenses (including wages)
>Ending of all tax credits, incentives, and subsidies, you pay your taxes and that's that

>genuinely solving poverty
>by giving
Economic quackery at its finest. If giving helps so much why is it that foreign financial/food aid contributes little-to-nothing towards a country's overall economic well-being, whereas the industrialization of a country and its economy's evolution can pull literal millions out of poverty? Giving is short-sighted and does nothing except provide those who donate a worthless feeling of usefulness.

If we didn't outsource to China, robots would have ultimately replaced most of those jobs anyways. In reality, China will probably outsource those jobs or replace workers with automation in the near future. The golden age of the "blue collar worker" is dead friendo. America's economy already post-industrial.

Holy shit you truly are delusional on top of your ivory tower

>people get butthurt when you try to take their shit from them on the basis that they have it and you don't
Yeah man, this rich BASTARD got super le butthurt yesterday when I tried to grab the keys to his Ferrari from him. Why should he have things just because they're his? IT'S NOT FAIR!!

fuck off commie. I rather be a trillion times richer than give some lazy millennial NEET my money just so he can waste his life on video games and children's cartoons

History doesn't work out well for Nazis

Define poverty, if people are dying of being way too fat then they certainly aren't poor

Shitty attempt at a strawman. A new Ferrari only costs 10 times more than a Ford Focus, it's not something you have to be mega-rich to afford. The thing is that the mega-rich don't actually pay taxes, so you're the one paying for their spare Bugatti OyVeyron.

>He doesn't even realize that he's the oppressed masses
Disappointing tbqhwyf.

>one person's gain is another person's loss

Trade isn't a zero sum game because of opportunity costs.
Let's say there is a skilled laborer A who can produce programming input worth 20$/h or cleaning which is worth 10$/h. There is also unskilled laborer B who can produce programming input worth 2$/h or cleaning input worth 5$/h.
Let's say a company that requires both programming and cleaning decides to hire both person A and B. Assuming they work 8 hours per day, if they were to spend half their day programming and the remaining half cleaning, their time would be worth 4*20 + 4*2 + 4*10 + 4*5 = 148$.
Now if A was to dedicate his whole time to programming and B to cleaning, their hours would be worth 8*20 + 8*5 = 200$.
This is because for A the opportunity cost of not doing programming is 10$/h, and for B the opportunity cost of not doing cleaning 3$/h.

Notice that A has absolute advantage in both production, that is his hourly output is worth more in both activites. But, because spending his time on one activity means his has to forgo the other, it makes sense for him specialize in one activity and trade the other one from someone with different opportunity cost. This was the point that David Ricardo made when he advocated for free trade.

>Bugatti OyVeyron
lel

...

The Yuan isn't artificially devalued. In fact the Chinese are trying to appreciate their currency in recent years.

Anarcho-Syndicalism is the only meme ideology that really addresses the problem by making a wage system based on contribution rather than employability

There are international standards of poverty. $39 a month would fall under the US poverty line.

Because the notion of poverty is tied to relative wealth, not absolute wealth. You increase wealth, and you just have "Well, I don't have a television, I'm living in poverty". A thousand years in the future, it'll probably be

>Oh, that poor sod, he can't even afford to get his genes cosmetically resequenced. Isn't that terrible? I'll give him some spare change.

But I don't WANT to work I want to make internet videos and watch anime.

Are you saying you would enslave me to your Syndicate and force labor from me?

Or starve me?

Fear not user, you'll have your own syndicate of youtubers pumping out all the garbage Frozen Elsa Spiderman videos you want

Labour-managed firms are retarded though.

I never said it wasn't retarded, I said it offered an out to extreme poverty, they'll at least get fed

We will never eradicate poverty because the standards for being "poor" will keep changing, even as productivity and prosperity grows.

There is no way anyone in the United States, even in the most blackest ghetto, can be considered poor by historical standards, but they are in comparison with more prosperous individuals who live in the same society.

Absolute poverty only exists in society dominated by subsistence agriculture, and this model is being eradicated as we speak where it still exists in Africa, Asia and Latin America.

Poor people should die desu

>Capitalism is doing its best to minimise poverty but in this system, one person's gain is another person's loss.

So where did all the wealth come from since the industrial revolution if wealth only changes hands and isn't created? Capitalism is the only system that has successfully lifted people out of poverty, central planning never works.

Resource distribution you fucking idiot.

Before asking this question, let's look at the state of the world.

The Bible says we have been cursed to till the land. We live in a fallen world.

So the answer seems: Work if you don't want to starve.

Capitalism is natural and the normal order of things.

Communism is retarded and goes against our very nature. A utopia is impossible in a fallen world.

The only utopia will be when Christ comes back to reign for a 1000 years, or when we die and go to heaven.

We have to go back.

I do hope that one day your worldview will be crushed παλιομαλάkα.

social democracy

Socialism is the only way.

You can do better.

This

We need new solutions for a new world. We lack creativity as a generation.

Cock holsters are still fighting old battles for stupid boomers who won't die.

>ayyyyy the Nazis were good guys let's be nazis
>oooohhhhh nooooooo there are nazis quick lets be commies!
>awwwwww sheeeit there are commies everyone it's time to go full fascism get your body armor and sword/baton kit bout quick

Here's the (You) that you were looking for.

It's simple. We kill the poor.

Sadly this approaches necessity.

Objectively speaking we need to cull the population from time to time.

We got too good at preventing the natural methods.

The Marshall Plan.
Though I agree that you cannot just give food to Africa or poor people and expect them to be better afterwards. The right kind of aid can help.
Giving fishising classes will provide for a lifetime blah, blah, but giving fishing classes is still giving.

>And yes, some people are inferior and deserve to be poor.
Best post ITT

>basing your political views around the foibles of a fictional character from a tv comedy

'You may be sorry about the conditions in which the questions arise. The thing to do is to try to help them get out of their intellectual confinement, which is not just accidental, as I mentioned. There are huge efforts that do go into making people, to borrow Adam Smith’s phrase, “as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human being to be.” A lot of the educational system is designed for that, if you think about it, it’s designed for obedience and passivity. From childhood, a lot of it is designed to prevent people from being independent and creative. If you’re independent-minded in school, you’re probably going to get into trouble very early on. That’s not the trait that’s being preferred or cultivated. When people live through all this stuff, plus corporate propaganda, plus television, plus the press and the whole mass, the deluge of ideological distortion that goes on, they ask questions that from another point of view are completely reasonable….'
chomsky.info/warfare02/

"But most of the educational system is quite different. Mass education was designed to turn independent farmers into docile, passive tools of production. That was its primary purpose. And don’t think people didn’t know it. They knew it and they fought against it. There was a lot of resistance to mass education for exactly that reason. It was also understood by the elites. Emerson once said something about how we’re educating them to keep them from our throats. If you don’t educate them, what we call “education,” they’re going to take control — “they” being what Alexander Hamilton called the “great beast,” namely the people. The anti-democratic thrust of opinion in what are called democratic societies is really ferocious. And for good reason. Because the freer the society gets, the more dangerous the great beast becomes and the more you have to be careful to cage it somehow."

What a load of bunk
>yes those disgruntled peasant farmers are actually LESS of a threat once they're literate and are made aware of the world 5km beyond their village

'CHOMSKY: … These were highly libertarian ideas. Dewey himself comes straight from the American mainstream. People who read what he actually said would now consider him some far-out anti-American lunatic or something. He was expressing mainstream thinking before the ideological system had so grotesquely distorted the tradition. By now, it’s unrecognizable. For example, not only did he agree with the whole Enlightenment tradition that, as he put it, “the goal of production is to produce free people,” — “free men,” he said, but that’s many years ago. That’s the goal of production, not to produce commodities. He was a major theorist of democracy. There were many different, conflicting strands of democratic theory, but the one I’m talking about held that democracy requires dissolution of private power. He said as long as there is private control over the economic system, talk about democracy is a joke. Repeating basically Adam Smith, Dewey said, Politics is the shadow that big business casts over society. He said attenuating the shadow doesn’t do much. Reforms are still going to leave it tyrannical. Basically, a classical liberal view. His main point was that you can’t even talk about democracy until you have democratic control of industry, commerce, banking, everything. That means control by the people who work in the institutions, and the communities.'

People have a weakness they like abusing kindness. But thats not their weakness at all. Their weakness is called forgive/forget/never forgive/never forget. How else are we supposed to collect dues or pay them out, no? It rules the probability of any network.

In the beehive mind they set social targets. According to their likening. Which further discords the social climate. Its the reason why in the US sphere of politics to foreign intelligence black people mean everything. They track the spread of black people because they are the nordics scapegoats. There have been nations with 0 poverty because the people strived for common wealths and equal rights. Equal rights means equal rights in pursuits of commerce corresponding to their sector/industry.

The democracy of the market is not the democracy that Plato spoke of in his Republic (c. 370 BC) as "a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a kind of equality to equals and unequals alike," nor that Aristotle in his Rhetoric (c. 322 BC) chided as "when put to the strain, grows weak, and is supplanted by oligarchy." It is not that which George Bernard Shaw taxed in his Maxims for Revolutionists (1903) as substituting "election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few," nor that Hans-Hermann Hoppe exposes in his Democracy—The God That Failed (Transaction, 2001, p. 96) that "majorities of ‘have-nots’ will relentlessly try to enrich themselves at the expense of the ‘haves’."
mises.org/library/meaning-market-democracy

>war economy
>requires war
Hm...

The Marshall Plan gave aid to rebuild which is why it worked. I'm talking about how it's stupid to think that just giving out free food will solve poverty

Because the centres of poverty always shift.

>Though I agree that you cannot just give food to Africa or poor people and expect them to be better afterwards.

It helps alleviate food poverty and starvation user. The alternative in many areas facing famine and drought is little else. and the food issue is multi dimensional.

The Marshall plan fuckign worried because those states are stable and the U.S was very clear to Europe who had the dick and wore pants (Hint: It was Uncle Sam) and they made it VERY CLEAR.

It's in great decline. It's been for several centuries now. It's a natural progress as poor families get gradualy wealthier. It takes time though and of course it's no consolation for people living in poverty now but it's impossible to eradicate it completely artificially.

Those jobs left America fora reason. America got those jobs because the world was mess and now it isn't. Why should I stay in America, what makes it labor innately better then say Spain or Mexico or Taiwan that I should have to pay more for the same results more or less?

Poverty is relative. It can't be eradicated.

>one person's gain is another person's loss

Can't lose what you never had.

>Europe
>Stable
>After WWII
Are you retarded

There's a lot of numbers missing from this chart. What is "purchasing power"? Thanks to modern education costs, I can't even get into a field without going into thousands of dollars of debt, which can only perpetuate the spiral into poverty as cost of living rises. Medical costs in an unhealthy environment or unsafe society could render me homeless. Capitalism enabled both of these to occur.

You fucking moron. You probably have never seen poverty.

Poverty is "I won't eat today so my kids can" or "I'll put off back surgery until my employer either helps pay for it (maybe, or they'll fire me first) or I'll never get it."

Poverty isn't going without TV, it's going without a normal life. You know, with a full belly and without crippling pain.

Wealth creates ease, which reduces the need for virtue. When virtue atrophies, bad decisions run families into the dirt. Once exposed to hardship, they develop new forms of virtue to rise again.

People think of the impoverished as a stable class of people that has developed over a long period of time. This is largely false. In Industrial societies, rising and falling up and down the class ladder is a generational process. Very few families stay in one place for very long.

>why is it so hard to eradicate the default state of existence