Is poverty necessary in a capitalistic society from an economic point of view?

Question

what would happen to the economy if there were no poor people?
does trying to save all the poor people have a negative impact on the economy?

Note: I am not a commie liberal. I am just curious.

Answer 1

The very basis of free market economics is that it strives to only provide equality of opportunity, not results. Thus, if you are going to have varying degrees of success, you are always going to have rich and poor because of relativity. That being said, that is not necessarily a bad thing. Consider, 1000 years ago Kings lived in conditions that make today's poor look rich, its all relative.

Answer 2

There will always be poor people in any society, capitalist or socialist. Is poverty necessary? Yes, because you have to have the extremes on the bell curve. There have to be two extremes with the majority somewhere in the middle being preferable. Poverty is also something defined by a society. A person suffering with poverty in the US may still have a higher per capita income than someone living in another country that is not as wealthy as the US. So the fact is you will always have rich and poor, but the majority of people are somewhere in between.

Answer 3

I'm not really sure how poverty helps a capitalist society. In fact it's something that I think can easily lead to it's down fall.

in reality there is now way of getting around the fact that some people will be poorer then others, but an economy would grow if everyone has enough money to live.

If you can some how get rid of poverty you will have more people to buy things, which will also increase the products and services this world needs/wants which will lead to more jobs.

Answer 4

Poverty is an inevitable consequence of capitalism. The fallout from the Industrial Revolution speaks for itself. Capitalism creates a class of laborers who have nothing but their labor to offer. Even when an economy is experiencing a boom, there will always be unemployment. In fact we have an acceptable level of unemployment that we tactfully call 'full employment' although 5% of our workforce is unemployed. When the economy goes through a recession, the incidence and severity of poverty increases. It is this inevitable fallout that caused the creation of the welfare state. If there were no poor people then there would be no laboring class, no production and consequently, no income and consumption would take a nosedive. The economy would grind to a halt.

Answer 5

Poverty exists in all societies. In a capitalistic society, you are able to upward push to the coolest. It merely relies upon on your dedication, potential, and ingenuity. the only stumbling blocks are positioned into place with the help of the crony capitalists that make government regulations to provide up the little guy from tearing aside the vast guy with an remarkable invention that could harm the vast, extensive political campaign donating, ingrained companies. Poverty is worse in non capitalist societies. In usa the destructive have homes, (excepting the homeless that have dependancy or psychological illnesses), air con, cellular telephones, and cable television, not all yet some.

Answer 6

In the effort to eliminate poverty a capitalistic economy would stagnate as there would be no assets left for growth.

A capitalistic economy grows, expands and becomes powerful when the individual is allowed to grow and expand to the best of his (or her) abilities. The system creates economic strata, therefor you will always have those who are less fortunate.

It is not perfect but it is one of the best economic models around.

Answer 7

trying to save all the poor people only has a negative impact on our economy when the govt mandates it! Simply put... capitalism allows and gives the best chance for people to succeed, but when the govt decides to be robin-hood by taking from those who have and giving it to those who don't it slows our economic growth by punishing people for succeeding and rewarding people for not.

America has the strongest economy and the best standard of living for a reason. we ought not try to imitate Europe, we have seen that socialism never promotes a society. it just stuns its growth

Answer 8

I believe even when America started this crazy ride, they knew capitalism required at least 5% unemployment Wish I could remember Adam Smith's Invisable Hand of the Market

Answer 9

If there were no poor people, we all would be much more happier, but there surely wouldn't be any multimillionair around. Honestly, I could live without multimillionaires. Capitalism, at least this that we know, survives on somebody's cheap working force and on the unfair distribution of wealth.

Answer 10

Yes. No trickle-down economics if there wasn't. And how do you define "rich" and "poor" if everyone has the same amount of income?