Could there ever be a free market, laissez-faire capitalist world without poor people or is socialism the only solution to ending poverty?

“Could there ever be a free market, laissez-faire capitalist world without poor people”
No. On the contrary, it requires poor people in order to function.

This question takes a specific ideology and compares it with a massive category. Laissez-faire capitalism is basically only a construct, and is probably impossible in practice. The state cannot extract itself from the marketplace, while capitalism cannot exist without the state. “Socialism,” on the other hand, is a massive array of theories and practices, ranging from authoritarian Stalinism to Proudhon’s libertarianism.

Most of the western countries Americans call “socialist” are still in fact capitalist, and many of them have reduced poverty to nearly nothing. Capitalists hate to admit it, but redistribution of earned income to the state is still capitalist itself.

When and where has socialism ever ended poverty? Capitalism is not, nor is it intended to be a guarantee of success. Capitalism merely provides opportunity for success.

@Jaxk…at the expense of others. But Socialism tends to be corrupt enough to have the same divide between the Haves and Have-nots, so the spectrum between Capitalism and Socialism is less of a line than a circle as both extremes are in the same place.

The best that can be done is a middle ground that has opportunity and safety nets, but that doesn’t even come close to Laissez-Faire.

@jerv Well said.

Socialism is, at best, temporary. It eventually fails because of the basic reality that people have different abilities and skills, and it is human nature to seek compensation (not just money) for those skills.

Scandanavian countries are reasonably good examples of laissez faire capitalism – free market – in which people have a pretty good standard of living. There are poor people in Sweden and Finland, for example, but the national feeling is that the nation has a responsibility to those people. (Unlike the US). As a result, even the poorest in Scandanavia have some “safety net”. So the distance between rich and poor (which still exists) is not as marked.

“Could there ever be a free market, laissez-faire capitalist world… ?”
You can stop right there, the answer is: no.

The end-game of laissez-faire capitalism is always monopoly. There has never been a ‘free-market’ and there is no reason to think one can exist except as a hypothetical starting point. The players in whatever markets exist are continuously pushing to their own advantage.

The closest to free-markets humanity has seen has been well-regulated markets where monopoly is prevented and barriers to entry are minimized. That’s when you get a real competitive environment that entrepreneurs crave.

“Almost the entire world is capitalist, and almost the entire world is poor.”—Michael Parenti.

In a laissez faire capitalist world the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The solution is taxation and legislation by an enlightened government responsible to the people, rich and poor alike.

@Gifted_With_Languages Great Question. The short answer? No, pure laissez-faire capitalism will always lead to trust building, game rigging, concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority and wage slavery for all the rest. Only if, in some far distant future, a purely altruistic version of humans evolve, will that not be so.

That does not mean that the only alternative is pure socialism, however. Government ownership of all means of production and distribution of wealth also vests vast power in a tiny number of hands, and human greed being what it is, the commissars use that power just exactly like the robber barons did to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else.

What seems to work best and make for the greatest good for the greatest number is private ownership of the means of production and distribution of wealth, but with strong controls regulating business to keep the playing field level so entrepreneurs and small businesses, the fountainhead in innovation, have a chance to compete in the land of the giants. Rather than socialism, a solid package of social safety netting is best.

Look at the Scandinavian countries. Year after year, when the survey is done to find out what nations have the happiest, most satisfied people, they come out on top. We should learn from what they are doing that works so well.

@elbanditoroso (Finland is not Scandinavia. Finland is part of the Nordic Countries, but it is not Scandinavian. It’s language and culture is rooted in something other than. I can not read or understand Finnish, but when I learned Norwegian, I got Danish and Swedish for free.)

Also, Norway and Sweden are more rooted in Socialist principals than what you are describing. We do pay high taxes and have a very large social welfare program to help the population. We have socialised medicine and our universities are free.

Our largest producer of income, the oil industry, is State Owned. Not very capitalistic, is it?

@cazzie: state capitalism much?

Of course it is a SOE. That still is in contrast with the ideals of laissez-faire capitalism (and socialism for that matter).