Is Capitalism and private ownership the main cause of poverty?

Question

even in the GB one of the richest country there is existence of significant amount of child poverty.
Capitalism can not exist without poverty, because there can’t be a rich people if it wasn’t poor people.

Answer 1

no, that would be laziness

Answer 2

This is a complex question and difficult to answer.

Poverty will exist any time there is an excess population for the available resources, regardless of the economic style of the culture. Look at Russia during the 1900s. There was no capitalism, yet much of the country was in poverty. Same for Africa - they are overbreeding.

However, in a rich nation, capitalism would be the primary factor for poverty. This, however, could be resolved through the proper use of taxes. Set an upper limit to the amount of money a corporation or person can earn, and then tax anything else at 100 percent - then give that money to those in poverty.

Additionally, the concept of business of faith being non-taxed needs to be changed too.

Answer 3

come on - child poverty in the UK? They do not know the meaning of the word. What is called child povert in the UK is ludicrous. The money available to a child in the UK each week that is seen as in poverty would keep an African family of six alive and well for a fortnight.

Without capitalism the UK would go broke. It has the forth largest economy in the world and one of the highest standards of living in the world, if not the highest!

Try looking at all the communist countries where the vast majority of their population are poor. Look at the countries that are turning away from communism to capitalism like Russia and China. Thier economies are booming, their populations are much better off and it is getting better for them all the time.

The last sentence of your question is pure fantasy. The rich get rich by employing the poor and paying them wages. Without the rich they would be unemployed. Without the rich paying taxes there could be no income support or benefits.

Answer 4

I disagree with your definition of capitalism. However, ultimately the answer to your question is yes. If there was no organized capitalism or legal private ownership, there would still be poverty, but it would be due to the strongest taking the most and making others do the work for them. Even in communist countries there is inequality. Here in China, when I first arrived, there were red and yellow taxis and black cars with tinted windows. Black cars had more privileges than taxis, pedestrians, and bikes. They still do, but now there are a lot of privately-owned cars that vie for the same privileges. The black cars were assumed to hold important people and their chaufeurs, and therefore were allowed all sorts of leeway. For example, during SARS, taxis were not allowed entrance into my apartment complex, but black cars were. Sometimes an entire road will be blocked for about an hour while a black car from out of town drives through the streets.

Before moving here, I lived in the Czech Republic 7 years after the fall of communism. In both these places the built-in inequalities are SOOOOO much greater than in the US and GB. It is SHOCKING the assumptions that there are some people who should have more privileges than others and the acceptance of this by the lowest to the highest in the pecking order. This sort of privileged existence exists everywhere, but in the US, at least, no one just gives it to you, and you are always resented for it, and have to fight to keep it. Those who are not privileged question their status and try to change it, and call for equality at every chance. Not so here.

So it's not capitalism as an economic practice that causes inequality, but it is a sort of capitalism in practice that always does.

Also, I don't know about GB, but I taught in one of the poorest areas in the US, and my students all had roofs over their heads, cable TV, caller ID, enough food to eat, etc., and lived in better housing than a lot of middle class people in other countries, certainly in much nicer housing than I had when I taught in the CR, where, by the way, the nearest phone was a couple of blocks away, and I had no kitchen.

Answer 5

In a word, yes. Personally speaking, even though I work for the NHS, and receive family tax credit my children would still be classified, under the Government's own guidelines, as living in child poverty! Sick old world that we live in isn't it! As for housing, it doesn't help that there are too many people who own more than one house, and that the social housing crisis created by the Conservatives has not been rectified under the so called 'Labour' Party. I could go on and on about this highly emotive subject, but I guess I'd better leave some space for others.

Answer 6

Wasn't socialist soviet union a non-capitalist country - with a fairly high poverty rate? There will always be certain level of poverty, regardless of the financial state of the populous. Look at what has occurred in New Orleans - the US government provides financial assistance for the needy to start to rebuild their lives, and they spend it on lottery tickets, Internet porn and jewelry. Maybe they felt this would make them feel better in the short term, maybe they felt the assistance provided was too low to begin with. I honestly believe that, if you gave 100 people $1 million dollars each, a certain percentage would blow it all and be without all over again, and a certain percentage would find a way to turn it into $100 million dollars, while most would fall in between and find a way for it to be enough to accomplish the things they feel they need to accomplish.

Answer 7

Poverty is relative so it depends on a number of norms. Child poverty too depends on lots of factors including the way in which parents handle finances. Capitalism may not exist without poverty but is there any economic system which does?

Answer 8

capitalism is one of the mian causes of poverty.capitalism widens the gap between the rich and the poor.significant efforts are made by the world bank ,ADB,and IMF to give debts to poor countries.
But they are being criticised as associates of rich countries.It is very thanksgiving that rich are coming forward to help the poor ,like Bill Gates,Warren Buffet.Many capitalist countries are aiding poor countries.
Growing population is also cause of poverty.laziness to do work is the other cause.
The policies of tyrannic governments can change their country into poor.
But in capitalistic countries one must have handful of money,otherwise none respects.

Answer 9

I don't think its as simple as putting it down to capitalism but there is no excuse for poverty. The problem is there is too much greed and corruption and in the countries where poverty is a real problem, excessive greed and corruption go hand in hand. These governments have a lot to anwser to and there needs to be radical change here.

Answer 10

Poverty existed long before Capitalism was even though about. So, no, not Capitalism...Private ownership? I doubt it. Collective ownership can be just as poor as private ownership.

Answer 11

Poverty exists because nature intends it to. Man just hasn't gotten around to fixing that. Poverty exists, period. There is poverty in capitalism, communism, mercantilism, and all other forms of economy.