Capitalism, The Best Solution to Poverty

[pErvinalia]

I haven not presented any dichotomy, false or otherwise.

What's more reasonable? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."

Central planning of an economy is, by all accounts, a worse method of allocating resources than a free market.

Try really hard, Forty Two.

I see what you're suggesting - that I just went ahead and presented a dichotomy. However, follow the thread. What I did was respond to pErvin's post. I noted that I did not present the dichotomy he is suggesting. Then I said HOWEVER -- and I did compare socialism to capitalism, which is what he brought up.

Dude, YOU are the only one that has brought up a comparison of socialism vs capitalism. What drugs are you on??

Note, that's not a "dichotomy." That's a comparison. I compared the two things he mentioned. If one asks, which team is better, Manchester United or Manchester City, that's not a dichotomy or a false dichotomy. It's a comparison of two things. That's the same with comparing capitalism or socialism.

I never asked or suggested or implied or anything that one is better than the other in that post you were responding to. The ONLY reference to socialism and capitalism was in the context of YOUR false dichotomy. You can't use the context of your false dichotomy as an excuse to get out of presenting the very same dichotomy.

As to "false" dichotomy, that's where someone presents two things as the only opinions. I've not done that at all. Not once, ever, no matter how much pErvin wants to say that I did.

God, you are a liar beyond comprehension. You've mentioned socialism vs capitalism TENS OF TIMES in the thread! Did you miss this post where I pointed out once such ridiculous post? - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#p1742490

[Forty Two]

And you have absolutely presented a false dichotomy between socialism and capitalism. IT'S THE ONLY TWO REASONS YOU'VE GIVEN for the difference in poverty and wealth disparity between the west and the developing world. It's a literal dichotomy, and the only question is whether it's false or not. It IS categorically false, as we've all tried to explain to you for 35 pages. There's myriad reasons for poverty eradication, and trying to claim it as all the work of capitalism vs socialism is a false dichotomy and fucking brain dead to boot.

I haven not presented any dichotomy, false or otherwise. That's you inventing things again.

Stop fucking lying, ffs. - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#p1742490

I mean, ffs, you do it in the VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH! No one, BUT YOU, is suggesting that socialism is an alternative to capitalism in eradicating poverty. What fucking drugs are you on that you can claim you aren't presenting a dichotomy, and then in the very next paragraph present the very dichotomy that you claim you aren't presenting??

I've never suggested socialism is an alternative to eradicate poverty. And, in that post you just linked to, I specifically state that I'm not suggesting there are only two choices, and I mention fascism, corporatism, socialism, and command economies in general. Are you blind?

I've said that if YOU want to advance socialism (or something else) as a solution to poverty, then do it. I don't give a fuck and it's not my responsibility to list all economic systems and analyze their effect on poverty. You make your own fucking argument, you dumbass!

Jesus, man, you accuse me of "lying" and then to prove that I have presented a dichotomy, you link to a post where I mention the existence of different economic systems, not just socialism and capitalism. Are you on drugs?

What's more reasonable? "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," or "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest." As such, capitalism does, in fact, make more sense than socialism,

Dipshit. YOU mentioned capitalism vs socialism. You said I advanced that as false dichotomy. I said I didnt advance that as the only choice. It's not the fucking god damn only god damn choice, you dumb fuck! There are other choices.

After pointing that out to you, I stated:

HOWEVER - read the fucking post - I said "HOWEVER" and then went ahead and COMPARED socialism and capitalism. That's not a false dichotomy, dumbass. That's a comparison. There are other alternatives, but comparing Socialism to Capitalism, Capitalism is pretty well obviously superior when it comes to helping people escape poverty.

What the fuck is wrong with you? Jesus H. Christ, you are dim.

To put this in simple terms that even you have to understand -

A false dichotomy is presenting two things as the only choices.
A comparison is taking two things and noting their similarities and/or differences.

A comparison is not a false dichotomy and I can compare capitalism with socialism without it being a false dichotomy, especially where in the same flipping post I mention OTHER ECONOMIC SYSTEMS WHICH EXIST.

[pErvinalia]

I'm genuinely starting to feel sorry for you. I'm done with you. This is getting embarrassing beyond belief.

[Forty Two]

Dude, YOU are the only one that has brought up a comparison of socialism vs capitalism. What drugs are you on??

That's absurd, but even if true, that's an admission that it's not a false dichotomy. There's nothing wrong with comparing socialism and capitalism. I've certainly compared them. That's fine, and very relevant, because socialism is one of the major economic systems of the last 200 years, and a commonly tried one. So, if we're going to discuss solutions to poverty, it's a very relevant inquiry. It's not, however, a false dichotomy.

Even if I'm the only one who compared socialism to capitalism at all, so what? Since socialism is certainly a major option if one is to eschew capitalism, then how it compares to capitalism is pertinent. Nothing wrong with talking about it, is there?

Note, that's not a "dichotomy." That's a comparison. I compared the two things he mentioned. If one asks, which team is better, Manchester United or Manchester City, that's not a dichotomy or a false dichotomy. It's a comparison of two things. That's the same with comparing capitalism or socialism.

I never asked or suggested or implied or anything that one is better than the other in that post you were responding to. The ONLY reference to socialism and capitalism was in the context of YOUR false dichotomy. You can't use the context of your false dichotomy as an excuse to get out of presenting the very same dichotomy.

I never said you did say one was better than the other. I was expressing my opinion, not yours. You brought up "socialism vs. capitalism" as an alleged false dichotomy which I supposedly presented. i denied presenting that as a false dichotomy and I went on to say "however..." and compared the two, because comparing them is certainly relevant to the discussion.

As to "false" dichotomy, that's where someone presents two things as the only opinions. I've not done that at all. Not once, ever, no matter how much pErvin wants to say that I did.

God, you are a liar beyond comprehension. You've mentioned socialism vs capitalism TENS OF TIMES in the thread! Did you miss this post where I pointed out once such ridiculous post? - http://rationalia.com/forum/viewtopic.p ... 9#p1742490

No, I did not mention "socialism vs capitalism TENS OF TIMES in this thread." That's just bullshit. That post does not present any dichotomy between socialism or capitalism.

First off - mentioning socialism vs capitalism is not a false dichotomy. The allegation was that I presented a false dichotomy. I did not. The MOST I did - which I did do - is COMPARE the two. You are lying through your teeth when you say I presented a false dichotomy.

Read the post you just linked to at the end there. I say this: "What are you on about? If you think socialism is a better solution to poverty, make your argument. Nobody is stopping you. I don't have to make all the possible arguments here. I presented a thesis and I'm discussing it. You always do this - you act like by not making your argument for you, someone is being dishonest.

It's not for me to mention other systems. But, I mentioned command economies in general. There are fascist economic systems, often referred to corporatism, marrying government and corporations to control the economy. If someone would like to propose another economic system that is better at solving poverty - like, if someone is going to say that socialism does the poverty solving, and it's capitalism that doesn't, then that's up to them. I'm not going to sit here and list all the options. If you feel an option is relevant, then discuss it."

That's not even comparing them. Sure, I mentioned socialism, but I'm allowed to mention it. And, I'm mentioning it in the context of your idiotic allegation that I've refused to acknowledge things. I'm not refusing to acknowledge anything. And, I'm telling you there to PRESENT YOUR OWN FUCKING ARGUMENT, DUMBASS! If you want to advance socialism as the best solution, do so. If you want to advance some other system, do so. I'm not going to anticipate what you might say and then address it.

I don't - once again - respond to your mere mentions of things. You just throwing out "but but colonialism..." or some such nonsense doesn't amount to an argument. You're not making an assertion and supporting it with argument. Until you do, I'm not inclined to assume what you mean, or guess at what argument you'd come up with. You like to do that - you like to throw out one liners and quips and then leave it hanging there for other people to "acknowledge" or "address." Well, when you make mere mentions of things, there is nothing to address. When you take a coherent position, and present an argument for it, i'll address it. But, until then, it's just more of your game-playing and trolling, because whatever anyone says about colonialism, or whatever, you'll just say you never said that, and someone is strawmanning you, etc. because you will not have actually adopted a coherent position or presented an argument to take issue with.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

In 1820, the share of the global population living in poverty was 94 percent while 84 percent lived in "extreme" poverty. By 1992, the poverty rate had dropped to 51 percent, while the "extreme" poverty rate had dropped to 24 percent. Using a different measure of international poverty, the rate has dropped from 53 percent in 1981 to 17 percent in 2011 – representing the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history.

Where is your evidence that capitalism is anything more than one of a host of factors underlying this change?

[Brian Peacock]

In 1820 most Western nations didn't have robust democratic processes or institutions, but by 1920 universal suffrage and forms of representative democracy was pretty much the standard. From 1920 onwards access to education and healthcare was progressively extended from being the preserve of the wealthy to something secured for all through the democratic mandate, along with measures like reforms to working practices, the scope of employment contracts, and housing policy. During this entire period poverty fell in both relative and absolute terms in the West. To say that Capitalism, and only Capitalism, is responsible for that sounds as simplistic and self-reinforcing as when Christians claim that without Jesus we'd all be spending our days raping and murdering.

[rainbow]

Exactly.

It's inconceivable that he can't understand why we are all so infuriated with him. We've all been trying to argue for nuance, and he's been consistently trotting out a false dichotomy.

Do not generalise.

I for one am not infuriated, but mildly amused at his attempts.

I've not trotted out a dichotomy. Note, I'm not the one that suggests that regulation means "not capitalism," or that social welfare for the needy is "not capitalism." That's the folks who have been "infuriated" by me who are doing that.

But, do you disagree? Hermit said nobody was disagreeing with me.

My opinion on this matter is irrelevant, since I don't believe in Capitalism.

I'm an Acapitalist, you see?

[pErvinalia]

You just throwing out "but but colonialism..." or some such nonsense doesn't amount to an argument. You're not making an assertion and supporting it with argument.

There's no point making any great effort with you, as you'll never move from your biases. But I didn't just throw out the term "colonialism". I mentioned a number of things and why they explain why "prosperity" in the west is allegedly greater than that in the developed world. I know this is a waste of time, but surely not even you could deny that there was great transfer of wealth from the new world to the colonial powers, in terms of both physical resources and slave labour? You haven't even acknowledged this basic point, so why would anyone expend any more effort on something that you don't even seem to understand the basics of??

[Forty Two]

Forty Two wrote:

In 1820, the share of the global population living in poverty was 94 percent while 84 percent lived in "extreme" poverty. By 1992, the poverty rate had dropped to 51 percent, while the "extreme" poverty rate had dropped to 24 percent. Using a different measure of international poverty, the rate has dropped from 53 percent in 1981 to 17 percent in 2011 – representing the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history.

Where is your evidence that capitalism is anything more than one of a host of factors underlying this change?

From The Economist - https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/ ... uld-aim%20

The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) —such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.

The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

The world now knows how to reduce poverty. A lot of targeted policies—basic social safety nets and cash-transfer schemes help. So does binning policies like fuel subsidies to Indonesia’s middle class and China’s hukou household-registration system that boost inequality. But the biggest poverty-reduction measure of all is liberalizing markets to let poor people get richer. That means freeing trade between countries (Africa is still cruelly punished by tariffs) and within them (China’s real great leap forward occurred because it allowed private business to grow). Both India and Africa are crowded with monopolies and restrictive practices.

Many Westerners have reacted to recession by seeking to constrain markets and roll globalization back in their own countries, and they want to export these ideas to the developing world, too. It does not need such advice. It is doing quite nicely, largely thanks to the same economic principles that helped the developed world grow rich and could pull the poorest of the poor out of destitution.

Nations like the US, UK, Switzerland, and Japan industrialized within what were predominantly laissez-faire free-market conditions. Even the so-called social democracies, like Sweden and Germany, developed in free-market conditions, and adopted extensive state welfare and regulatory programs only after achieving high levels of economic development and industrialization. World Bank data shows that there is inequality, but this inequality is between the free-market nations and the crony-capitalist and socialistic nations.

The largest improvements in the poorest nations took place during the wave of globalization that took place twenty years ago, after the fall of the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union opened the door to unprecedented globalization of industry. What does real data tell us about poverty during this period? Per Capita GDP rose dramatically:

Thirty years ago half (50 percent) the people in the poorer nations of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2012, 21 percent of people in the poorer nations of the world live in extreme poverty. Development of global markets has greatly lessened poverty around the world. This is a very important fact. Movement from being in the lowest global income bracket, to lower middle income to middle income means moving from average life expectancy in the low forties to life expectancy of fifty or sixty, respectively. Cardinal Maradiaga is wrong: this economy does not kill; it has extended the lives of the poorest people in the world.

https://mises.org/library/data-clear-fr ... ce-poverty

Five stats that show capitalism solves poverty -- https://www.dailywire.com/news/14525/5- ... on-bandler

[Forty Two]

You just throwing out "but but colonialism..." or some such nonsense doesn't amount to an argument. You're not making an assertion and supporting it with argument.

There's no point making any great effort with you, as you'll never move from your biases. But I didn't just throw out the term "colonialism". I mentioned a number of things and why they explain why "prosperity" in the west is allegedly greater than that in the developed world.

As I said, your "mentions" are fine, but they aren't arguments. You need to set forth an assertion, and back it up with argument. I'm not going to assume what you mean by mentioning a term. Tell me in detail how you think it worked and what it did, and cite some sources and links.

You don't accept it if I "mention" capitalism. You don't even accept the reams of argument and sources from all over the political spectrum which back up my claims. You don't address them or refute, you simply "mention" some terms and make a declaration.

I know this is a waste of time, but surely not even you could deny that there was great transfer of wealth from the new world to the colonial powers, in terms of both physical resources and slave labour? You haven't even acknowledged this basic point, so why would anyone expend any more effort on something that you don't even seem to understand the basics of??

Stop asking me questions. Make your own argument. What are you asserting, specifically, and on what basis do you assert it?

Are you asserting that there was a great transfer of wealth from the new world to colonial powers, and if so, when and where and to whom, and how does that relate to the best solution to poverty reduction? Do you have any sources or citations? How much wealth transfer occurred? What impact did it have on poverty reduction? You make your own argument.

Your accusation that I don't understand the basics is misplaced projection. You don't understand the basics of economics or of the political ideologies of which you "mention." You throw out words, and make declarations and you call that argument. Then you ask other people questions, to put the burden on them to refute whatever you say before you've even said it or tried to substantiate it. Sorry, dude, been there with you, and done that. here's the pattern:

Pervin makes a mention of something - a decaration
Pervin then shifts the burden to others to refute it, before he's even advanced any support or argument for his own position
Whatever argument is put forth to refute what the person thinks Pervin is arguing is declared wrong or a strawman, since pervin has left the entire field open by not actually presenting an argument, just the conclusion.
Repeat.
Unless the topic is abandoned, begin namecalling and insults.
Repeat.

[Forty Two]

[Brian Peacock]

What do you see as the advantages of the turbo-Capitalism you've advocated over a more regulated, responsible form of Capitalism?

[pErvinalia]

Stop asking me questions..

No. Answer them or don't. But don't claim you have addressed them at some later point, like you have a habit of doing.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

In 1820, the share of the global population living in poverty was 94 percent while 84 percent lived in "extreme" poverty. By 1992, the poverty rate had dropped to 51 percent, while the "extreme" poverty rate had dropped to 24 percent. Using a different measure of international poverty, the rate has dropped from 53 percent in 1981 to 17 percent in 2011 – representing the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history.

Where is your evidence that capitalism is anything more than one of a host of factors underlying this change?

From The Economist - https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/ ... uld-aim%20

The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) —such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.

The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

The world now knows how to reduce poverty. A lot of targeted policies—basic social safety nets and cash-transfer schemes help. So does binning policies like fuel subsidies to Indonesia’s middle class and China’s hukou household-registration system that boost inequality. But the biggest poverty-reduction measure of all is liberalizing markets to let poor people get richer. That means freeing trade between countries (Africa is still cruelly punished by tariffs) and within them (China’s real great leap forward occurred because it allowed private business to grow). Both India and Africa are crowded with monopolies and restrictive practices.

Many Westerners have reacted to recession by seeking to constrain markets and roll globalization back in their own countries, and they want to export these ideas to the developing world, too. It does not need such advice. It is doing quite nicely, largely thanks to the same economic principles that helped the developed world grow rich and could pull the poorest of the poor out of destitution.

Nations like the US, UK, Switzerland, and Japan industrialized within what were predominantly laissez-faire free-market conditions. Even the so-called social democracies, like Sweden and Germany, developed in free-market conditions, and adopted extensive state welfare and regulatory programs only after achieving high levels of economic development and industrialization. World Bank data shows that there is inequality, but this inequality is between the free-market nations and the crony-capitalist and socialistic nations.

The largest improvements in the poorest nations took place during the wave of globalization that took place twenty years ago, after the fall of the USSR. The collapse of the Soviet Union opened the door to unprecedented globalization of industry. What does real data tell us about poverty during this period? Per Capita GDP rose dramatically:

Thirty years ago half (50 percent) the people in the poorer nations of the world lived in extreme poverty. In 2012, 21 percent of people in the poorer nations of the world live in extreme poverty. Development of global markets has greatly lessened poverty around the world. This is a very important fact. Movement from being in the lowest global income bracket, to lower middle income to middle income means moving from average life expectancy in the low forties to life expectancy of fifty or sixty, respectively. Cardinal Maradiaga is wrong: this economy does not kill; it has extended the lives of the poorest people in the world.

https://mises.org/library/data-clear-fr ... ce-poverty

Five stats that show capitalism solves poverty -- https://www.dailywire.com/news/14525/5- ... on-bandler

Not evidence, just opinion. Correlation is not causation. At the best, free enterprise has been one driver of economic growth (out of many), but its tendency to greedily exploit both resources and workers means that it is a driver that constantly needed to be controlled and managed, with varying levels of success...

[Forty Two]

Stop asking me questions..

No. Answer them or don't. But don't claim you have addressed them at some later point, like you have a habit of doing.

I've no intention of addressing terms you "mention." Make an argument. Take fucking coherent position, and defend it. You like to just fling terms out there and then tell others to prove you wrong. That's just bullshit. If you think colonialism was the best solution to poverty, or was a dominant factor, then make your own fucking case. But, don't pretend you've made an argument when all you've done is say: Uh.... colonialism... and demand I "address" it.