4 ms·

> Enrichment from market-tested betterment will go on and on and, over the next century or so, will bring comfort in essentials to virtually everyone on the pla

by scalio 10y ago

> Enrichment from market-tested betterment will go on and on and, over the next century or so, will bring comfort in essentials to virtually everyone on the planet That smells strongly of the same kind of delusion that fuels capitalism, infinite growth. > What, then, caused this Great Enrichment? Not exploitation of the poor, Apparently, none of our clothes or electronics are being fabricated by (economic) slaves. While I do mostly agree with the article's conclusion, > But the modern world came from treating more and more people with respect. it all looks terribly cherry-picked to me in order to make a certain point: "The current system is fine, we can all feel good" or thereabouts.

berntb 10y ago
>> Apparently, none of our clothes or electronics are being fabricated by (economic) slaves. You know the full argument as well as I do, I'd think? For a country to get rich, it walks up a staircase. It starts with simple industry, investments in education and at the top after two-three generations are Japan or South Korea? What to do to walk the staircase is known today, there are examples. It mainly needs lack of conflicts, little corruption and good (capitalist) governance. If you have good counter arguments, other than that China has one generation left of stairclimbing, I'm interested? This was what changed my world view regarding this: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19...
- scalio 10y ago
  Thank you for that link, and for changing my view on the subject. The thing about capitalism, though, is that it's an apparently reliable way of doing things in such situations. Apart from the odd crisis, it has worked fabulously for the west during the 20th century. With the internet, however, a lot has changed. I'm not old enough to quantify exactly how much or what, but what's certain is that it has created an entirely new ground to explore and 'colonize', and I don't think capitalism is at all well suited for stable humanist development in both the physical and the new virtual grounds.

by scalio 10y ago

berntb 10y ago

>> Apparently, none of our clothes or electronics are being fabricated by (economic) slaves. You know the full argument as well as I do, I'd think? For a country to get rich, it walks up a staircase. It starts with simple industry, investments in education and at the top after two-three generations are Japan or South Korea? What to do to walk the staircase is known today, there are examples. It mainly needs lack of conflicts, little corruption and good (capitalist) governance. If you have good counter arguments, other than that China has one generation left of stairclimbing, I'm interested? This was what changed my world view regarding this: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/1997/03/in_praise_of_cheap_labor.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_dismal_science/19...

scalio 10y ago
Thank you for that link, and for changing my view on the subject. The thing about capitalism, though, is that it's an apparently reliable way of doing things in such situations. Apart from the odd crisis, it has worked fabulously for the west during the 20th century. With the internet, however, a lot has changed. I'm not old enough to quantify exactly how much or what, but what's certain is that it has created an entirely new ground to explore and 'colonize', and I don't think capitalism is at all well suited for stable humanist development in both the physical and the new virtual grounds.