So anons , just watched a documentary on poverty in India. So a real debate. Don't shill but honest answer...

So anons , just watched a documentary on poverty in India. So a real debate. Don't shill but honest answer , capitalism is better to deal with poverty or socialism or the answer lies in between both?

Attached: images (21).jpg (554x554, 28.95K)

Start with No-Labour or Minimal Labour industries. A car-maker created his product, an oil tycoon just got somewhere before someone else, or swindled the last guy.

Attached: refinerymaplarge.png (771x601, 194.6K)

Free market. Any government intervention makes the poor poorer.

No matter what the political orientation is

> CORRUPTION
+ CORRUPTION = + poverty

Capitalism is better do to the motivation to do better. India just has too much corruption that stems from being born in different castes.

>Be India
>1.2 bn population
>Huge unemployment
user suggests no labour industry
Wut?

Also a limit on the amount of children

An oil-rig is minimal labour in relation to the monetary value. Use your head.

But isn't that playing into globohomo hands? Which at the end make inequality btfo poors

That's considering the fact that every place has huge oil reserves. India imports 90% of its energy needs.

>ships all ur jobs to the third world or invites the third world wherever they can so wages can be driven down
Heh... nuffin personnel... goyim....

Globohomo is not free market. They're intimately connected to the government.

What are you talking about

Attached: india-top-10-exports_091619014406.png (505x740, 19.46K)

Do you think Greenland should put tariffs on any imports competing with their banana plantation industry?

We import raw oil.
Refine it
Export it.
Profit?

Invade Saudi Arabia

Capitalism provides a better incentive to work and innovate, but greed is at the heart of this incentive. Too much greed results in the globohomo corporate culture we have now and degradation of our world and cultures for maximizing profit. I would support a Christian corporatism that reigns in the greedy part of man and urges him to seek higher things in life than more wealth and material things.

Now if you would've said Pakiboo then I would've trusted you.

India actually is more spiritual than west. Other side is people just take their shitty life as karma of past life so no worthwhile attempt to counter their degraded condition.

In capitalism we use a relative index for measuring poverty, so there will always be people in poverty no matter how rich those at the bottom are
In socialism, everyone is equal, so no poverty, even if everyone is in abject poverty

I'm talking about absolute downtrodden. Like trying to break mountain though chisel ,make stone out of it and sell it as brick structure

In the mid to late 1800s, the US had the closest thing to a free market in any major country in human history. It also came with the fastest advancement in standard of living for all classes. Where was the globohomo?

Quite right. Corruption is a blight on any society.

You already know...national socialism is the only way.

Capitalism must be present simply as a driving force for productivity, from businesses right down to students striving to learn more and better. This allows society to both make use of its talented members and also rewards these members for their hard work.

However, as a natural side-product of capitalism, you'll have babies being born into the world, directly and instantly competing with mega corporations. Nobody is at fault here. The founders of most big businesses had to work hard at some point to get their power and wealth, so it would be unfair and stupid to strip them of their rightfully earned wealth like all useless commie shitholes do.

However, it is biologically impossible for people, who are only guilty of being born 10-20-30 years too late, to have equal oppurtunities as well established, gigantic businesses.

In a normal world, the state intervines on the side of the younger, soon-to-be working age population, similar to a worker's union. This should be done not only domestically, but also against. multi-national companies, who are to be viewed as hostile nations in this scenario. Just as the USA and Russia bombs the shit out of small nations for oil, so do multi-nationals want to strip mine nations for their cheap workforce.

In short, the first and most important goal, is to have political leaders in office, who want to make their nation great, and not their own pocket. Most politicians today are cheap disposable mouth pieces for big corpo. And that same big corpo will fund hordes of rent-a-mobs both on social media and the MSN, to destroy the reputation of politicians who want to move against them.

It is your duty, as a citizen to search, campaign and vote for people, who actually represent you and your nation in office. If all else fails, run yourself.

Yes, it really is that hard.

Western Christianity is spiritually dead and has been for over 50 years. The remaining religious Western Christians cling on to superficial religious stimuli and/or a romantic view of the past. I would argue that Orthodox Christianity has a deep spirituality much like Hinduism. St. Paisios the Athonite interacted a great deal with Indian mystics, there are many recordings of this. Sadly, most Orthodox Christians don't live this way, including myself.
Christian corporatism doesn't have to be mixed market with government controls. My definition of it would be fairly similar to what you described, because the people owning those businesses were for the most part moral. Then you get into trusts, monopolies, corporate police and those people were definitely not moral.

Nat soc

Nah India doomed itself forever when they kick the British out.

Attached: 2560px-British_Raj_Red_Ensign.svg.png (2560x1280, 265.53K)

the answer to escape (childhood) poverty is first, basic health and literacy programs, so socialism first
capitalism left to its own devices would employ all poor kids in sweat shops

You know half of the uk money is just laundered shit and other half invested by foreigners like India. UK produces nothing of value naturally?