One problem that I've just realize about this world is that; there are alot of poor people.
What pity me more is, the poor from developed country, I think city condition is just too un-conducive for getting out from poverty. You need education and skills to be employed, and you'll also need to avoid succumbed to mental illness and drug use.

Since forever, there's a large percentage (~10%) of poor people in the US, I guess it is because of the economy, the capitalism.
- Well... I'm refering to the US because I'm informed of the kind of economy it uses (which is popular), and, the poor and homeless in the US has already had cultural reference in US movies, which I can see clearly. *not that I'm denying that homelessness exist anywhere else, in fact, it is everywhere, and that's scares me...

Capitalism just suck people out of their business:

Imagine every single man who lives in this country is a businessman, they produce things, and they also buy other things from other businessman. This behaviour distribute wealth continually and evenly, hence there's no problem here. Each businessman will always control the price of his own product so that he won't go poor. Competition with other businessman of similar product will ensure the price didn't rose too high.

Assume this picture of ideality resume indefinitely.

Now, lets say every businessman had many kids. Obviously, the wealth will diffuse into these kids, and this is another way to distribute wealth, which is; wellfare. What happen next is that, the father'll expand his business to accomodate bigger space for ownership and bigger income, this ownership will belong to his kids, (hence creating a family business).

Assume that this picture resume indefinitely... with each new kids, came a bigger business, a bigger income. And this ultimately became a sustainable business, no one will ever need to be jobless.

But, lets say we introduce a capitalist here...

...and lets also say that;
prior to the capitalist, due to natural competition, price of all traded commodity has already inflated 12 times beyond its original price (which can happens in free-market). But no one is getting poor for this, because everyone IS PART of the economy, such that; everyone can respond to low income by increasing the prices of their product, (as long as it has demand).
*But lets also assume that the demand never cease, like wheat and fertilizer business.
*Lets also assume that no one had ever created a product that's useless.

Now, the capitalist (whom originally a normal businessman) wanted to increase profit by trying to reduce the price of his product. To do so, he must have cheap resources. So... (if he's in wheat business) he must replicate the business of his supplier (the fertilizer business) and subsidize this operation so that it can produce a product at an un-inflated price.
- It is like paying a factory worker to produce a product, rather than buying the product from them.
- This new business will be owned by his cronies and his kids. The shareholders for both the old and the new business will be owned by them. The profit is to be shared evenly. Such that, if the factory wasn't profitable, it is considered as subsidized by the parent company.

This subsidization has 2 dire consequences to the non-capitalist fertilizer maker:
- First, when the demand for fertilizer became low, the money rather flows into the capitalist hand (because people still buy the wheat) rather than back torward the fertilizer maker.
Hence, the capitalist are getting richer. *nothing controversial...
- Then, the capitalist bought the fertilizer business, making the previous owner into a "worker". If he has kids, then this kids need to be "worker" too. There's no family business anymore, so the available jobs is bottlenecked on a single person, the capitalist. The basic necessity of "worker" life now depends on this capitalist.

Lets say "worker" doesn't stop breeding more kids.
And lets say, the capitalist himself cannot expand his business at fast enough rate to accomodate these newborn worker.
Certainly, in the end, the unemployement will rise.

THESE un-employed worker also cannot rebuilt their business, because:
- First, because it needs high starting cost. Everywhere, you'll see expensive food and equipment due to the previous inflation.
- Second, because your product can't go as cheap as the capitalist's product, hence no buyers.
- Third, if you made it cheap, then the income will be too low, city standard of living is high, and you'll go poor nevertheless.

Also;
The capitalist may still be competing with their original competitor, hence their price might still be competitive. Therefore, it would be difficult for new player, with no factories and no cheap supplier, to get into the market scene and offer a new competitive prices.

Since it was a free-market system, government will not help any newcomers into the market, am I right?
Nor do the price for basic necessity items be controlled from inflation.

Conclusion:
Hence, the system of free-market and capitalistic culture create more poorer people because:
- jobs are limited, due to the bottleneck created by capitalism.
- free-market create an inflation that prevent newcomers into the market.

Capitalism does create extreme poverty among maybe 10% of the people who live under the system.
Socialism, on the other hand, creates borderline poverty among 90% of people who live under its system, e.g., Cuba, Laos, North Korea, etc.

[quote1246399858=nanrek!]
Socialism, on the other hand, creates borderline poverty among 90% of people who live under its system, e.g., Cuba, Laos, North Korea, etc.
[/quote1246399858]
I don't like socialism too.
I think, the poverty in capitalism is caused by price inflation,
*hence to solve this problem is to prevent inflation.

- It start like this; The price of all product inflate, so the capitalist take advantage of cheap labour in China to create cheap variant. Local non-capitalistic US business (still relying on 'inflated' local resources) are unable to compete, hence kaboosh.

But IF China cheap labour live in the US then they would be poor too.
So: 90% poverty is other country could be indirectly caused by capitalism in the US.

P/S: But I don't know about Laos, North Korea and Cuba.
I'm totally clueless...
Perhaps you can elucidate?

its stupid to blame poverty on capitalism, as though its some mysterious orchestrating force outside of individuals. people are not organized by capitalism, capitalism is just what happens when people come together in an honest and unfettered context, with the goal of making some good old surplus value. i think the only thing capitalism can be blamed for (if anything) is just a consolidation of man's best features. People are not benevolent, egalitarian beings. no one ever made any progress championing the ideas of the poor. Who cares about the poor? not me, and not capitalism.

[quote1246405910=humanzee]
Who cares about the poor? not me, and not capitalism.
[/quote1246405910]
I doesn't care about poor too.
But it is a problem yet to be solved,
and we should solve it in the most elegant manner possible.
- Problem solving is our purpose of living right?

* you comment reflects your conviction that there's no hope (whatsoever) for the poor.
* actually there should be. If we can bend around the constrain of gravity to get to the moon, why not bend around the constrain of modern economy to solve poverty? solution is out there!

Also;
What do you think of this idea?; www.ephilosopher.com/e107_plugins/forum/...viewtopic.php?175116

[quote1246442323=humanzee]
its stupid to blame poverty on capitalism, as though its some mysterious orchestrating force outside of individuals. people are not organized by capitalism, capitalism is just what happens when people come together in an honest and unfettered context, with the goal of making some good old surplus value. ... People are not benevolent, egalitarian beings. no one ever made any progress championing the ideas of the poor.
[/quote1246442323] Well... I do like capitalism, because there are alot of rich people.
Rich people have power and influence, it would be fun to live among them.
But I think socialism too have potential of achieving this utopia.

The main principle of socialism is regulation, right?
The main principle of free-market is no regulation, right?
So you got 2 extreme;
an economy shaped by regulation -versus- an economy shaped by our instinct.

How socialism stagnant the economy;
Fixing the price of food eliminate the ability for food industries to gain wealth, but at the same time; the government are siphoning money from wealthy industries to subsidize this small food industries.

Since there's no inflation, Capitalist cannot rely on high food price to create a cheaper variant using factory workers, hence it has no advantage in re-siphoning wealth from those small food industries.
- So... there's no ludicrous amount of money for the wealthy industries to spend on research and international branch, hence no progress.

But this is an economic system created by human.
Socialism create a stagnant economy, don't they?
So, free-market, (an economic system which self-adjust itself), is introduced.

* Free-market depends on the power of individuals to manage a small part of economy, which when combined like a jigzaw puzzle, create a very big economy. Big and efficient.
* But each capitalist company are performing socialism too... they subsidize and assumed partial control over their sister company. But they're just controlling a small part of the economy, hence still very efficient.

How to make a regulated economy grow?
- Simple... assume that economy is a complex problem. Tweak here, then tweak there, perhaps one will find an elegant solution to poverty without sacrificing wealth!

* i.e. Laos here; www.mongabay.com/reference/country_studies/laos/ECONOMY.html are adopting free-market, but inflation cause problem (see end of the article), so free-market causes this problem. meanwhile, regulated economy has none of this problem, but has other problem. I guess there could be an elegant solution in the middle of both.