You are no capitalist, you may be an entrepreneur, but unless you only make money from your investments, you are not a capitalist. The true capitalist, through their control of the government, ensure poverty, by eliminating the middle class.

@glennlab Pure capitalism is survival of the fittest. Competition where the inefficient, the weaker ones, fall by the wayside. Government should temper this with socialist policies ie for the common good eg National Parks, health care.
When the Capitalists take over government, that is fascism.

@glennlab You are only focusing on one definition of the word capitalist, but that word has more than one definition. It also means- "someone who supports capitalism (= an economic and political system in which property, business, and industry are controlled by private owners rather than by the state, with the purpose of making a profit)", and I would certainly fall under that category. For example, back in 2017 I saw strong indicators that the cryptocurrency Bitcoin was soon going to drastically rise in value and made a move to invest, which ended up paying off big time. In turn, I used that capital to generate wealth, and years later it's still paying off. How could a scenario like that not be considered capitalizing on a given situation? And it should go without saying that I support property rights and privatized businesses rather than let the state control that.

The extent to which capitalists control the government is a complex and nuanced issue that can vary depending on the specific context and country in question, and to claim that all capitalists are controlling the Government is to overlook certain factors and stretching credibility.

As for the last part, again, there are varying factors and sources of information to consider before we make such sweeping generalizations that all capitalists are trying to eliminate the middle class. You do realize that argument is largely subjective, a topic that is fiercely contested on both sides of the argument, and to be fair both sides present a compelling case(s).

You want a surefire way to ensure poverty? Get everyone convinced that the Government can magically solve all of the problems in society and promote social welfare programs that to begin with might not be able to last in the longterm, and make it easy for people to stay on those programs to a point where they don't want to get off said programs which in turn keeps them in poverty, and then they start to complain about the free market system precisely because they're in poverty and I suppose it's easier to bash that rather than face the real reason why they are that bad off to begin with. And don't tell me unions are the magical solution either, I almost got severely injured on the job and my union representation acted rather nonchalant afterwards, and my own father died prematurely because his union (at one point he was the vice president of his union) frickin ignored an important concern that he tried to point out, which ironically ended up being the death of him, after which someone had to die first before changes were made. At times it's hard for me to say whether or not I should feel sorry for him, as towards the end of his life all he could do was complain about how the Democrats were taxing him blind, all the while continuing to vote for the very people who he claimed were screwing him over.

Capitalism is not to blame for every ill in society, and frankly we're lucky to be able to live in a country like this that affords its citizens the freedom to pursue their own wealth, despite there being a number of crooked politicians who try to limit our options. Other people around the world are not nearly as fortunate. Addressing poverty in our country requires a nuanced approach, and any and all potential factors need to be weighed evenly if we are ever to conquer poverty once and for all. And that also means that both the socialists and capitalists of the world need to learn to work together for a greater good, instead of pointing the finger at and dehumanizing one another.

@puff Having socialist types control everything in Government is not the answer either, and despite some rather generous social safety nets here in the US poverty still remains an issue, and it's not all the fault of the capitalists either. Social safety nets are just that, a backup for if and when seriously needed, but programs like that don't nor ever will solve the problem of poverty. That will require both political extremes (in this case the socialists and capitalists) working together to find solutions. Pointing fingers is not getting us anywhere.

@SpikeTalon I would disagree with you on a few points, capitalism is not a political system, it is an economic system, which I support as long as it is well regulated. The natural evolution of capitalism is monopolies as the capital crowds out all the smaller competitors. But yes one who supports such a system can be considered one.

Both pure capitalism and socialism have proven to be abject failures, so I support neither.

I did not say all capitalist, just the ones that want to use their monies to control the government for their benefit. Since they are the largest recipients of welfare, capitalists have indeed become dependent on it. Take away the corporate subsidies and they would scream until the rivers ran red. Take away patents and copyrights from corporations and only allow individuals to own them .

The best government program to get people out of poverty, which returned $8 for every dollar invested was the GI Bill. Education is the best way to combat poverty, that doesn't just mean college, it means any program that can equip a person get a better job or live a better life. We have been trying since the beginning of civilization to defeat poverty, we never will. The best we can hope for is to give a hand up to those willing to take it.

I wish you had taken a journalism course. One topic, three points. lol.

@SpikeTalon Socialism like capitalism in their pure forms will always fail due to the human element. Our safety nets are some of the worst in the western world, and you are right, but it is not just the extremes and the middle that need to work together, they need to stop being a roadblock to progress.

We may never solve the problems of society, but at least we can try.

@glennlab Capitalism is mostly an economic system, but economics are tied real close to our politics, which is why I phrased it that way. Actually, I went by Cambridge Dictionary's definition there. Monopolies can potentially develop under various economic/political systems, including fascist, socialist, and communist regimes, and not just under capitalism. In those systems, the government or a central authority may control the means of production and distribution, which could lead to the concentration of power and resources in the hands of a few entities or individuals. This concentration of power could result in monopolistic practices that limit competition and consumer choice.

How about a mixture of the two... pretty much like we have now? Maybe find a way to improve things rather than leaning more one way or the other? No economic or political system created by human beings has ever been one-hundred percent successful.

Okay, then I stand corrected, and glad to hear you don't think all of them are bad. I too are strongly opposed to corporate welfare (crony capitalism), but regarding that issue wouldn't you say the root problem there is... the Government, and by extension the politicians that go along with that, being they are the ones who are "generously" giving away our tax dollars to such greedy individuals? I can certainly agree on the patents part.

I also agree on the education part, that is key to having a promising future, and you're also right in saying that would not mean exclusively college (these days, plenty of online learning sources that cost a fraction of the price college costs). We may not ever be able to totally eradicate poverty, but I do think there's more we could, to minimize it. When I get the spare time, there were a few of your group posts I came across recently that had wanted to comment on, education being one of the topics.

As for the journalism part goes... would you believe me if I told you I was looking into online courses on getting involved in OSINT journalism? Just curious...

That's the thing right there, how shabby our social safety nets are compared to some other countries. Was recently reading about Switzerland, which is regarded as being one of the most libertarian countries in the world, and they also have social welfare programs, but unlike in our country their social safety nets are highly effective. More focus is put on education and resources to help the citizens find employment, and given how effective those programs are Switzerland consistently sees a low percentage of those unemployed and on Government assistance. If Switzerland could have a robust free market economy combined with some social welfare programs built into the system, and make it work, why couldn't we do the same?

Sorry Glenn, try as I may, just can't seem to keep my comments shortened. I feel sorry for @snytiger6, that poor soul all too frequently has to put up with extended commentary from me when it comes to the political posts, lol.

@SpikeTalon I think that we agree more than we disagree.

Monopolies can, do and must exist under all economic systems for efficiency. It would be cost prohibitive to have separate power lines, water lines, and sewer lines for instance. Those are natural monopolies, and should either be government owned or closely controlled to stop abuse. The other non natural monopolies must be highly regulated, so that they don't use their power to keep other smaller entities from entering the marketplace.

I would say the root problem is greed, by the ones at the top be they corporate or government. I think vigorous enforcement of ethics and lobbying laws along with term limits for judges, congress members, and lobbyist. Punishments for accepting or offering bribes, gifts, or gratuities over a certain $$ amount from anyone outside your family . Apply this law to all relatives that live in the same
household.

As far as journalism goes, the first time I got a piece back from my editor, I thought he had bled on the page there were so many red marks on it. It took 4 rewrites before it was ready for publication. I was used to public speaking, but print communication is inverted in that you try to present your most important point in the first sentence, then flesh it out, while in public speaking, you build the body before the reveal.

@glennlab You mentioned above that you think that we agree more than we disagree. There must be a considerable amount of truth in that statement, because I... would agree on that.

Yes yes and yes, you nailed it Glenn, human greed is the direct root problem and not corporate types or the Government per se. What you suggested after that comment would be a good start.

Interesting, thank you for sharing that piece from your past. I could go on about that topic, but don't have alot of spare time at the moment though. Recently took a course about understanding terrorism and why 9/11 happened, and one of the final projects/assessments required in order to pass the course was to do two policy memos on related topics. Needless to say, I was less than thrilled with that, as I was limited in space on what I could describe. Somehow I made it through though.

On a random note here, did you ever read a book called "How to Win Friends and Influence People" by Dale Carnegie? I'm willing to bet you have, and don't think I need to explain why I brought that up. You wished I had taken a journalism course, fair enough. I think you would have made for a solid public speaker, as you could make an appeal to both sides of the argument. That sort of thing is noticeable to me, as these days (and for the last two decades or so now) I don't see nearly as much diplomacy like that as I used to. Anyways, a happy Independence Day to you Glenn, later.