JimC wrote:Forty Two wrote:
I find it interesting that not a single post suggests an alternative to capitalism that would, in fact, be a better solution to poverty.
In that case, you've misunderstood what most posters have been saying. Basically, it's not black or white; capitalism vs "other", with the supposition that "other" is socialism, if not full-blown authoritarian Marxism. The arguments have been much more nuanced than that, with 2 main trends that I can see.
The post, however, is about capitalism as an economic system being the best [economic system] as a solution to poverty. Nuance is fine. But why are people at my throat on this? If the response is -- "yes, capitalism as an economic system is the best solution to poverty, but I favor a nuanced solution in terms of more regulation [or whatever] than perhaps an extreme anarcho-capitalist would support."
Don't you see a rather aggressive response to me on this? It's as if they want to argue that I'm wrong, and then say that I'm not wrong, we're just talking a bit of nuance here.
Or, it's that they don't want to admit, for some reason, that capitalism is actually a good economic system when it comes to poverty. They want to say that it isn't without saying that it isn't, and without explaining what system they would think is better.
JimC wrote:
Firstly, a recognition by many (if not all) that some aspects of a market economy drive innovation, and usefully contribute to progress and wealth creation. Typically, this was accompanied by the proviso that careful, thorough and intelligent government control, with strong social programs and a robust union movement, was needed to counter-act the strong tendency of capitalism to foster inequality to the extreme. Typically, I contrast was made between Trump's America, where the 1 % are getting ever wealthier and more powerful, and a basket of other western democracies, where, however imperfect they may be, they provide a better life for the mass of people.
Sure, but the 1% getting wealthier does not mean poverty is also not getting reduced. There seems to be this equation of income inequality with poverty, as if the only measure relevant to poverty is if the population makes approximately the same income or has the same wealth. I have acknowledged that inequality is a relevant data point. But it is not determinative, is it?
I mean, if you had a country where everyone was equally poor, would you have no poverty? What if you had a country where 1% of the population was as rich as Bill Gates, and the rest were around the level of a doctor making $300,000 per year. Would that mean everyone who wasn't a 1% Bill Gateser was poor?
JimC wrote:
Secondly, societies where you aver that their capitalist nature has been the solution to poverty are contrasted to a bunch of other societies, where there are many more factors than economic systems in play. Modern western societies have, for a variety of historical reasons, reached peaks of technological development early, and have additionally disrupted other societies by colonial actions. The rule of law, the existence of diverse media, mass education and many other factors make simple comparisons based on economic systems very dubious.
The fact that there are other factors does not refute the assertion that Capitalism is the best solution to poverty. So, when someone says, hey, there are other factors, are they arguing that capitalism is not the best solution to poverty, and other factors are? Or are they saying, "yes, we grudgingly admit capitalism is the best solution, but remember, it's not the ONLY thing that impacts poverty.
Things like "the rule of law" are a requirement for capitalism to exist, not a factor "other than" capitalism. You can't have capitalism without law, because, for example, without law property is not defined. Like - what is propery? When is property owned? If you write a song, do you own it? How? If you use a brand, can you keep someone from using the same brand? If you borrow money and you sell the lender a "mortgage" on your property what does that mean? What rights do they have? How do they enforce it? If you buy a car, how do you prove ownership? With a title? What does that mean? Is there a "lien" on it? What is that? All that is defined by "law" and without law, there can be no capitalism, because capitalism cannot exist in a lawless state - a lawless state is anarchy.
Even anarcho-capitalism has ome law. The law of contract. Every anarcho capitalist assumes there is a right or power to contract with other people -- well, law governs contract too.
So, one, I think my position is more nuanced than you are giving me credit for. I'm not viewing anything black and white. And, the "nuance" of certain others, I think, if more appropriately described as incoherence or equivocation, not nuance (not referring to you, JimC, on that last bit).
“When I was in college, I took a terrorism class. ... The thing that was interesting in the class was every time the professor said ‘Al Qaeda’ his shoulders went up, But you know, it is that you don’t say ‘America’ with an intensity, you don’t say ‘England’ with the intensity. You don’t say ‘the army’ with the intensity,” she continued. “... But you say these names [Al Qaeda] because you want that word to carry weight. You want it to be something.” - Ilhan Omar
