> that means, most importantly, lower profits and a radically different economic dynamic that doesn't place capital on a singular pinnacle
Capitalism has been the most effective vehicle to reduce poverty in the 20th and 21st century. Communism, socialism and most hybrid attempts have been outright failures in comparison.
That politicians don't want to embrace some other economic model isn't some conspiracy. It's just plain sense.
capitalism isn't some miracle that created the current american politicoeconomic environment. the single biggest (but not sole) factor (i.e., luck) in that was geographic: it just so happened 2 huge oceans separated us from the biggest war in history.
cheerleading for capitalism is at best a non sequitur.
This isn't the case just for the US but also for the UK and our fellow Europeans who also practiced Capitalism - even the ones who had to endure the great wars.
You are welcome to suggest an alternative but you will have to support it. The choice of Capitalism seems critically important, along with the choice of some sort of Democracy.
[1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-r...
11% is a fucking travesty for the richest nations in history whose overabundance is downright, shockingly monumental. we should have exactly zero people who don't have secure food, shelter, and a modicum of dignity. that's squarely on capitalism along with (republican[0]) democracy.
[0]: not the political party; republics centralize power in the hands of representative 'elites', because we all know the msases are too stupid to know what's good for them.
I mean it's great to stand on mountains and tell everyone they're doing it wrong - but talk is free. You want to do better than 11%? Do it.
You don't even need to get on a plane. Go talk to your local homeless community. Share your ideas about how you're going to put them all in homes. You can make sandwiches and distribute them if nothing else.
Form a Non-Profit. Hire people. Make it happen. Prove us, the collective masses, too stupid to know what's good for us.
This is false dogma. China has been UNARGUABLY a wild success. Now subtract every human life that ended prematurely or was lived in relative poverty because the USA funded terrorists and facist overthrow of their democratically elected socialist government
poverty isn't simply about money or possessions, but rather is fundamentally about opportunity and esteem, to meaningful work and fair wages first and foremost. that means, most importantly, lower profits and a radically different economic dynamic that doesn't place capital on a singular pinnacle.
this is the elephant in the room that no politician really wants to address around poverty, because it'd directly oppose all of their wealthy backers in one fell swoop. it's exactly why we never get any movement, except hair-brained policies, like UBI, that are meant to surreptitiously funnel public funds into greedy private hands and make things worse for the poor in the long run.