-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Socialism is great for poor countries, Capitalism is great for rich countries
- Thread starter ronki23
- Start date
Sorry but Capitalism is only good for the rich and business's.
Well, traditionally GDP has been the measure of material wealth (something New Zealand is pushing back on now).
By that measure, China is not poor. And is growing.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
America isn't fairing too well in those categories either.
Countries like China, India and Sub Suharan Africa would benefit greatly from wealth distribution and income equality. Once they can stand on their own two feet then we can use capitalism.
At what point does a poor country become a rich country?
I think the "trickle down" theory was always somewhat flawed.
As to when a poor country becomes a rich country, that's a good question. I was going to say that a "rich country" might be one of the G20, but since India and China are already part of the G20, then they would already be considered rich countries.
There might be other factors to look at. Both India and Mexico are in the G20, but they also have large segments of their population living in abject squalor, even worse than what the poorest in the U.S. would have to face. But then again, the poor in some European countries might be better off than the poor in the U.S.
lukethethird
unknown member
Socialism is great for poor countries, Capitalism is great for rich countries.
Unregulated capitalism is great for the rich, especially when it provides the rich with socialism.
Unregulated capitalism is great for the rich, especially when it provides the rich with socialism.
sooda
Veteran Member
Over 10 Years, Poverty Rate In India Reduced To Half: UN Report
Over 270 million people in India moved out of poverty in the decade since 2005-06, the 2018 global Multidimensional Poverty Index released by the UN noted.
All India | Press Trust of India | Updated: September 21, 2018 00:22 IS
Over 10 Years, Poverty Rate In India Reduced To Half: UN Report
PureX
Veteran Member
Socialism is good for the poor people in poor countries. And capitalism is good for the rich people in rich countries. Because regardless of how we draw the national borderlines, socialism is good for the poor, and capitalism is good for the rich. Socialism spreads the wealth around by giving everyone a say in how it is being generated, and who benefits from it, while capitalism gives all the control to the capital investor, who uses it to increase his own wealth no matter how much of it he has already obtained.
ronki23
Well-Known Member
America isn't a poor country
sooda
Veteran Member
True, but our middle class is shrinking.. and it seems to me that is the result of the declines in manufacturing and union participation.
What do you think "trickle down" has to do with capitalism?Countries like China, India and Sub Suharan Africa would benefit greatly from wealth distribution and income equality. Once they can stand on their own two feet then we can use capitalism.
At what point does a poor country become a rich country?
ronki23
Well-Known Member
I don't see the need for wealth redistribution in developed countries; i'd rather see wealth redistributed in poor countries
"Trickle down" is wealth redistribution. It's the term for when a government takes money from general revenue (i.e. all taxpayers) and gives it to those at the top of the income pyramid in the hopes that this will spur economic growth.
What about world-wide wealth redistribution? Like if the whole world was a single country?
ronki23
Well-Known Member
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Not by any means. But the middle class is dwindling and since the Recession most economic growth and gains have went straight to the top. America has a very lopsided income distribution that simply cannot be described as income equality or equity, and upward mobility hasn't been much of a thing in America for decades now.