11 ms·

Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say it's broadly the result of capitalism. I really feel like it's a shame that word is almost toxic in intellect

Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say it's broadly the result of capitalism. I really feel like it's a shame that word is almost toxic in intellectual circles.

zorpner 8y ago
Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say... With this stunning level of rigor, it's astonishing that you'd be baffled by the discourse in actual intellectual circles.
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  The personal attack is not necessay. The observation on lack of rigour stands. The question of what actually precipitates, maintains, spreads, or limits growth has in fact been a central question of numerous economic schools of thought and/or ideology; the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, free-market fundamentalists, J.S. Mill's steady-state, Ricardo & George on rents, Schumpeter's creative destruction, Kondratieff's technological waves, North's institutionalsism. Jevons, Adams, Lotke, Soddy, Boulding, Georgescu-Roegen, Meadows et al, Daly, Ayres, Klitgaard & Hall, Smil, and Keen all point to an overwhelmingly dominant role for energy, especially fossil fuels. The full answer has multiple components. Simply chalking "capitalism fixed it" is beyond facile. Particularly when aggreement as to what that term even encompasses is at best exceptionally limited.
groestl 8y ago
I also think that (some aspects of) capitalism play a role in this, but another large factor is probably improved access to education, especially education of girls.
- groestl 8y ago
  Interesting that this is controversial here, but the reasoning goes like this: peace and fewer civil conflicts allow for stronger institutions, such as schools. Education amplifies this even more, and strenghtens trust in institutions. In some places, schools help keeping the children fully fed, making sure they get at least one meal a day. Furthermore, improving education for girls specifically is almost always followed by a reduction of the number of children later in life and a raise in childbearing age. With fewer children, each one gets access to more resources, including education and technology, breaking the cycle of poverty.
sudofail 8y ago
Capitalism and free markets aren't without their shortcomings, especially when left unchecked, but they are extremely important tools to successful government and society. Perhaps the criticisms you hear are aimed at unchecked, unregulated capitalism.
- TeMPOraL 8y ago
  Or simple, extreme views. I think the better view of capitalism allows to both appreciate it for the unprecedented age of prosperity it brought to this world, as well as identify it as the major factor in the biggest problems of present day, from climate change to inequality-related social tensions. It's an extremely powerful tool that let us grow to where we are, but needs fine-tuning so that it won't shake our societies apart.
- pitaj 8y ago
  Most of the criticisms I hear are against the current system. Specifically, I hear many criticisms of "free market" healthcare and finance, among others. All of which are ironically the most regulated and checked industries. I hear people blame "deregulation" for the financial crisis, when in reality government regulations and policies misaligning incentives hold a majority of the responsibility.
throwaway13337 8y ago
I agree. We should be careful to condemn too quickly a current system. It reminds me of when a new developer comes to a code base and says it needs to be thrown out and rewritten completely. Rewrites and revolutions are costly and shortsighted. Let's first try to figure out what is right with what's here because usually it's like it is for a reason.
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  There is one thing “right” about capitalism and that is a huge increase in consumer goods. Shame it is also literally boiling the world we live on but hey, for a short while we could get new iPhones every two years!
  - _louisr_ 8y ago
    Did the Communists not build tanks or burn coal? Is it Capitalism, or is it the human desire to take the path of least resistance; is it not human to consume ready-made energy that has been subsidized by the carbon capacity of the oceans and atmosphere?
    - inawarminister 8y ago
      Indeed. The Aral Sea being drained under Soviet Union was much more immediately catastrophic to the local environment that what the Capitalist world economy is doing that I know of. Of course, global warming, but it took decades if not centuries. [0] http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm
    - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
      Ah yes. Because clearly the choices are capitalism or Soviet Union dictatorships.
      - golergka 8y ago
        That's what history of 20th century shows us, yes.
FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
Capitalism was the cause of extreme poverty, from enclosure movements to slavery to industrialization to colonialism. To say that capitalism is to thank for lifting people out of the tragedy is hilarious. Especially as capitalism causes 8 individuals to be richer than half the world.
- 07d046 8y ago
  I'm no historian, but I think extreme poverty has existed for a lot longer than the idea of capitalism.
  - lkuty 8y ago
    Sure but now we have a system that is very well optimized to allow a few people to get super rich at the cost of the whole world safey (them included).
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    And yet we choose to congratulate a system that willingly put people into extreme poverty for centuries for finally giving a few scraps back. We could have had a system which lifted people out of poverty, but no, we went for slavery and colonialism and all that fun stuff. And we continue to do that. Half of America is one missed paycheck away from financial ruin, and that is the richest country that has ever existed. But sure, lets praise capitalism!
- lkuty 8y ago
  Yes indeed. World Bank... We can stop reading the rest of the title and avoid reading the article entirely.
- _louisr_ 8y ago
  It's not hilarious to thank Capitalism for lifting people out of tragedy - It's what has happened. Coal power plants in low income countries; iPhone factories creating an economic explosion in China; T-Shirt factories in Bangladesh. All of these things are the result of Capitalism and the free market, and participating countries are doing well. They are accepting some environmental damage, though. Consider that the company making the most progress in sustainable energy is, well, a capitalist company. Alternate systems have not worked out so well, as you know. Communist planned economies led to the starvation of tens of millions, and that number increases to hundreds of millions when you add the persecution, jailing, and sometimes immediate execution of citizens of Communists states that had a history of political activity of the wrong sort. Recall that in Soviet Russia it was beneficial for each individual to "inform" on their neighbours to the KGB, so that they could claim their apartment. And it's suspected that Vladmir Putin is actually the richest person in the world. Colonialism and slavery are pretty rough, but they are not a product of capitalism as much as a product of human malevolence and brutality. I'm sure you would find evidence of colonialism and slavery in pre-civilization times and in non-capitalist societies, so that argument falls flat. Also, regarding the 8 richest individuals - If the rest of the world is getting on OK, why should we not have a couple of super rich people around? Why is that inherently bad? Why do _you_ think you should have a say of where that money belongs, exactly?
pgsandstrom 8y ago
I believe just attributing it to capitalism is way to broad of a statement. It's not too uncommon to say that the "capitalist era" has existed for about 500 years, and the explosive growth of value has existed for a much shorter time. So to simply say that all our current growth comes from capitalism is way to simplistic.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  A definition of capitalism I like is this: Capitalism is where the gains/profits are not just consumed. They are re-invested. That's where explosive growth comes from. You make some money. Instead of blowing it on wine, women, and song, you use it to buy better tools. So you are more productive, and so you make more money. You use that to buy even better tools. Spread that behavior over a large chunk of society, keep that up for several decades, and you'll get a pretty explosive growth of value.
jackcosgrove 8y ago
It seems to be a question of timing. I can see two competing explanations, the spread of market economies and the demographic dividend. Keep in mind most of this extreme poverty was eliminated in Asia, and in particular China. Unfortunately China began to liberalize its markets and realize its demographic dividend in the early 80s, at the same time, so I'm not sure about that case. Again in India, liberalization and falling birthrates happened together in the 1990s. 25 years ago was 1993, two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It's an arbitrary time frame, perhaps conveniently selected. That said, market economies spread rapidly throughout the second world during the 90s, and the Soviet subsidies that had kept a number of command economy-leaning third world countries were cut off, forcing liberalization. The most powerful effect of this was the widespread loss of belief in the effectiveness of command economies. With the end of the USSR the major ideological opponent of capitalism collapsed. World historical event -> world-wide change in outcomes is too big a correlation to dismiss. That said it's tough to tease out what is driving what, economics or demographics. I do think that human flourishing occurs when ideology gets out of the way of individuals pursuing their own interests, whether their interests include opening a small business or not birthing children for the motherland. So I am not able to say, "it's because of capitalism," or, "it's because of contraception and female education." I am confident that we can say, "ideology and authoritarianism make things worse."
manigandham 8y ago
Better technology, which has led to incredible productivity and increased quality of life. This was in part natural advancement as it is exponential and we eventually just hit explosive growth, but the environment was helped along with capitalism, free markets, and major world wars which encouraged the spread of information and trade.
jopsen 8y ago
For all the criticism of how wages have stalled in the west, in the world as whole capitalism does pretty well :) But the toxicity of capitalism often stems from the polarized debate, I don't actually think many wants capitalism without regulation, or communism without free property rights... but it's hard to argue for the sane middle ground when you're attacked from both sides.
- simonh 8y ago
  Personally I think wage stagnation has largely been due to huge reserves of labour in the developing world coming into the market. The worst thing you can say about capitalism in that regard is that it's Capitalism that has enabled those people to raise themselves out of poverty and contribute and participate in the global economy. How terrible! However those reserves of labour are largely getting tapped out. Wages for factory workers in China have been rising dramatically for a while now. There are other challenges coming , such as increased automation, but again that's not really directly the fault of capitalism. Meanwhile while wage growth has slowed, we've all benefited hugely from the cheap goods and services enabled by these changes. I really think it's much more about technological and demographic changes rather than capitalism per se. If anything, we've suffered from too much economic development, technological advances and global growth.
  - r_smart 8y ago
    One of the things people often seem to overlook in the US is that at about the time the wage stagnation started, we also began the process of roughly doubling the workforce by removing barriers against women entering the labor market. Then, as you say, another labor surplus was generated as the developing world has come into the market. It's rarely as simple as supply and demand, but there seems to me to be a correlation between stagnant wages and large increases in the labor pool.
    - simonh 8y ago
      And house prices as well, particularly here in the UK. Households increased their earning power through female employment, then used that capital to bid up house prices against each other.
cf141q5325 8y ago
It would be kind of bleak if there wasnt a reduction in extreme poverty if you consider at which speed we burn through not replenishable natural resources. Defacto free energy in form of fossil fuel and a lack of large wars in the population riches regions of the world can do wonders.
Certhas 8y ago
It's a million improvements in a million individual situations. It's public programs to raise health and educate people made feasible by economic growth. It's happened in countries with vastly different systems in very different parts of the world for the last century. The biggest reason for reduction in extreme poverty over the last decades is the responsibility of the Chinese state. The fastest drop in family size ever was overseen by the totalitarian Iranian government. Beware easy one line explanations.
- vlehto 8y ago
  ...responsibility of Chinese state to adopt capitalist strategies of generating wealth. Thats the big thing they did different from soviet union. Everything else they do is pretty run of the mill geopolitical selfishness.
SpecialistEMT 8y ago
As a radical leftist, when im criticizing capitalism, im not saying that it's worse than what we had in the past, but that we are doing way less than we could to have a better system.
- cheschire 8y ago
  Hmm. Left-wing politics is about liberalism and equality, yes? I believe what you meant was as a radical progressive, which is more focused on reforming and improving society. That liberalism is associated with progressivism seems to take away from progressive right-wingers which may believe in the inherent inequality of certain inevitable social structures, but work to abolish or reform broken regulation. I do not intend to imply my political beliefs here. I'm simply saying perhaps you meant progressive.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Left-wing politics is about liberalism and equality, yes? No. Not in either of the sensed “liberalism” is currently used. Equality, yes, in a manner particularly opposed to the structural inequities of capitalism, but not liberalism, which is either about capitalism or a viewpoint which seeks to maintain capitalism a while moderating certain inequities within it, depending on which of th current usages of “liberalism” you refer to. > I believe what you meant was as a radical progressive “Radical progressive” is a phrase used in US politics go refer to a certain range of left-wing positions. > That liberalism is associated with progressivism It's not, though one of the senses of liberalism is adjacent to progressivism. > seems to take away from progressive right-wingers While the term “progressive right-wingers” may not be nonsensical in some historical usages of “progressive”, it is simply oxymoronic in the current usage. > which may believe in the inherent inequality of certain inevitable social structures, but work to abolish or reform broken regulation. You seem to be using “progressive” as simply anyone who seeks change from the status quo to realize their political values, which is a novel use. The grandparent used “radical leftist” correctly.
    - cheschire 8y ago
qubax 8y ago
> Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say it's broadly the result of capitalism. This is a tricky question. Easily the biggest factor is china. China being the most populous nation was the largest source of poverty a few decades ago and now is the largest source of reduction of poverty. They lifted 680 million people out of poverty by 2010. Today, that number is probably approaching 800 or 900 million due to their economic growth. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end-of-poverty https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end... So do we credit the "communism" of the chinese communist party? Do we credit capitalism? Do we credit chinese communism management of capitalism? Do we credit foreign investment? Chinese entrepreneurship? It all depends on your political bias. Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. Also, poverty is a very political/strange concept. A poor city dweller struggling to make ends but who has a smartphone and nice sneakers will not be in poverty. But a farmer who owns his land, is independent and grows enough food to live comfortably but has no smartphones or sneakers would be seen as being in exreme poverty. Ultimately, reduction of poverty is simply a result of moving farmers and stuffing them into large cities and how dependent they are on the "state". The less poverty you are in, the more you are dependent on society for life's essentials. Also, poverty decreasing is great, but in the same time period, wealth inequality has increased drastically. Imagine poverty of weapons. Both of us are in extreme weapons poverty ( we have no weapons ). You get a nerf gun and I get a shotgun. Weapons poverty is wiped out. We should celebrate right? It's "great" that poverty decreased, but the differential in power between me and you skyrocketed. Look at china. Their poverty has decreased dramatically. But the power differential between the powerful and everyone else has increased dramatically as wealth inequality skyrocketed. Is this really a good thing? The wealth inequality funding "digital dictatorship" and tyranny? This is the same diversion tactic some people use about wealth not being a zero sum game. In purely terms of wealth, it is not a zero sum game. But wealth translates into power. And power certainly is a zero sum game. So if you got $10 and I got $10,000,000, in terms of wealth, both of us are doing better. But in terms of power, my power increased drastically while yours barely budged. > I really feel like it's a shame that word is almost toxic in intellectual circles. It is because it's opinions based on political biases. But economists and political "scientists" do a great job lying to us that their field is a "science" with the same credibility of physics. It is not. There is no objective truth because it's not in the realm of the empirical but societal/political. You'd have less toxicity in a debate between a christian, jew and muslim on who is the one true god.
mpax 8y ago
It’s due to return on energy investment going up due to new productive technologies, aka “capital”. “Capitalism” is an orthogonal issue. To put it in Marxian terms, you can have a socialist community with a capitalist mode of production. The way new capital reaches the third world can be attributed to globalization of market circuits, for instance, China is currently investing into Africa much like the first world did to China in the past. Of course, if you define the terminology differently, say you’re an Austrian Economist, the above explanation might appear unintelligable.
MarkMc 8y ago
Pinker has a pretty good explanation in his book, "Enlightenment Now". His answer boils down to: 1. More people now live in a market economy which produces more goods and services for everyone, even poor people 2. Better leadership. Eg. In 1976 Mao in a single act greatly improved the trajectory of most of the world's poor - he died. 3. End of cold war meant end of US and Soviet support for many civil wars and ugly dictatorships. 4. Globalization and industrialization 5. Science and technology

Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say it's broadly the result of capitalism. I really feel like it's a shame that word is almost toxic in intellectual circles.

zorpner 8y ago

Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say... With this stunning level of rigor, it's astonishing that you'd be baffled by the discourse in actual intellectual circles.

dredmorbius 8y ago
The personal attack is not necessay. The observation on lack of rigour stands. The question of what actually precipitates, maintains, spreads, or limits growth has in fact been a central question of numerous economic schools of thought and/or ideology; the Physiocrats, Adam Smith, free-market fundamentalists, J.S. Mill's steady-state, Ricardo & George on rents, Schumpeter's creative destruction, Kondratieff's technological waves, North's institutionalsism. Jevons, Adams, Lotke, Soddy, Boulding, Georgescu-Roegen, Meadows et al, Daly, Ayres, Klitgaard & Hall, Smil, and Keen all point to an overwhelmingly dominant role for energy, especially fossil fuels. The full answer has multiple components. Simply chalking "capitalism fixed it" is beyond facile. Particularly when aggreement as to what that term even encompasses is at best exceptionally limited.

groestl 8y ago

I also think that (some aspects of) capitalism play a role in this, but another large factor is probably improved access to education, especially education of girls.

groestl 8y ago
Interesting that this is controversial here, but the reasoning goes like this: peace and fewer civil conflicts allow for stronger institutions, such as schools. Education amplifies this even more, and strenghtens trust in institutions. In some places, schools help keeping the children fully fed, making sure they get at least one meal a day. Furthermore, improving education for girls specifically is almost always followed by a reduction of the number of children later in life and a raise in childbearing age. With fewer children, each one gets access to more resources, including education and technology, breaking the cycle of poverty.

sudofail 8y ago

Capitalism and free markets aren't without their shortcomings, especially when left unchecked, but they are extremely important tools to successful government and society. Perhaps the criticisms you hear are aimed at unchecked, unregulated capitalism.

TeMPOraL 8y ago
Or simple, extreme views. I think the better view of capitalism allows to both appreciate it for the unprecedented age of prosperity it brought to this world, as well as identify it as the major factor in the biggest problems of present day, from climate change to inequality-related social tensions. It's an extremely powerful tool that let us grow to where we are, but needs fine-tuning so that it won't shake our societies apart.
pitaj 8y ago
Most of the criticisms I hear are against the current system. Specifically, I hear many criticisms of "free market" healthcare and finance, among others. All of which are ironically the most regulated and checked industries. I hear people blame "deregulation" for the financial crisis, when in reality government regulations and policies misaligning incentives hold a majority of the responsibility.

throwaway13337 8y ago

I agree. We should be careful to condemn too quickly a current system. It reminds me of when a new developer comes to a code base and says it needs to be thrown out and rewritten completely. Rewrites and revolutions are costly and shortsighted. Let's first try to figure out what is right with what's here because usually it's like it is for a reason.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
There is one thing “right” about capitalism and that is a huge increase in consumer goods. Shame it is also literally boiling the world we live on but hey, for a short while we could get new iPhones every two years!
- _louisr_ 8y ago
  Did the Communists not build tanks or burn coal? Is it Capitalism, or is it the human desire to take the path of least resistance; is it not human to consume ready-made energy that has been subsidized by the carbon capacity of the oceans and atmosphere?
  - inawarminister 8y ago
    Indeed. The Aral Sea being drained under Soviet Union was much more immediately catastrophic to the local environment that what the Capitalist world economy is doing that I know of. Of course, global warming, but it took decades if not centuries. [0] http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm http://www.columbia.edu/~tmt2120/introduction.htm
  - FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
    Ah yes. Because clearly the choices are capitalism or Soviet Union dictatorships.
    - golergka 8y ago
      That's what history of 20th century shows us, yes.

FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago

Capitalism was the cause of extreme poverty, from enclosure movements to slavery to industrialization to colonialism. To say that capitalism is to thank for lifting people out of the tragedy is hilarious. Especially as capitalism causes 8 individuals to be richer than half the world.

07d046 8y ago
I'm no historian, but I think extreme poverty has existed for a lot longer than the idea of capitalism.
- lkuty 8y ago
  Sure but now we have a system that is very well optimized to allow a few people to get super rich at the cost of the whole world safey (them included).
- FranzFerdiNaN 8y ago
  And yet we choose to congratulate a system that willingly put people into extreme poverty for centuries for finally giving a few scraps back. We could have had a system which lifted people out of poverty, but no, we went for slavery and colonialism and all that fun stuff. And we continue to do that. Half of America is one missed paycheck away from financial ruin, and that is the richest country that has ever existed. But sure, lets praise capitalism!
lkuty 8y ago
Yes indeed. World Bank... We can stop reading the rest of the title and avoid reading the article entirely.
_louisr_ 8y ago
It's not hilarious to thank Capitalism for lifting people out of tragedy - It's what has happened. Coal power plants in low income countries; iPhone factories creating an economic explosion in China; T-Shirt factories in Bangladesh. All of these things are the result of Capitalism and the free market, and participating countries are doing well. They are accepting some environmental damage, though. Consider that the company making the most progress in sustainable energy is, well, a capitalist company. Alternate systems have not worked out so well, as you know. Communist planned economies led to the starvation of tens of millions, and that number increases to hundreds of millions when you add the persecution, jailing, and sometimes immediate execution of citizens of Communists states that had a history of political activity of the wrong sort. Recall that in Soviet Russia it was beneficial for each individual to "inform" on their neighbours to the KGB, so that they could claim their apartment. And it's suspected that Vladmir Putin is actually the richest person in the world. Colonialism and slavery are pretty rough, but they are not a product of capitalism as much as a product of human malevolence and brutality. I'm sure you would find evidence of colonialism and slavery in pre-civilization times and in non-capitalist societies, so that argument falls flat. Also, regarding the 8 richest individuals - If the rest of the world is getting on OK, why should we not have a couple of super rich people around? Why is that inherently bad? Why do _you_ think you should have a say of where that money belongs, exactly?

pgsandstrom 8y ago

I believe just attributing it to capitalism is way to broad of a statement. It's not too uncommon to say that the "capitalist era" has existed for about 500 years, and the explosive growth of value has existed for a much shorter time. So to simply say that all our current growth comes from capitalism is way to simplistic.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
A definition of capitalism I like is this: Capitalism is where the gains/profits are not just consumed. They are re-invested. That's where explosive growth comes from. You make some money. Instead of blowing it on wine, women, and song, you use it to buy better tools. So you are more productive, and so you make more money. You use that to buy even better tools. Spread that behavior over a large chunk of society, keep that up for several decades, and you'll get a pretty explosive growth of value.

jackcosgrove 8y ago

It seems to be a question of timing. I can see two competing explanations, the spread of market economies and the demographic dividend. Keep in mind most of this extreme poverty was eliminated in Asia, and in particular China. Unfortunately China began to liberalize its markets and realize its demographic dividend in the early 80s, at the same time, so I'm not sure about that case. Again in India, liberalization and falling birthrates happened together in the 1990s. 25 years ago was 1993, two years after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. It's an arbitrary time frame, perhaps conveniently selected. That said, market economies spread rapidly throughout the second world during the 90s, and the Soviet subsidies that had kept a number of command economy-leaning third world countries were cut off, forcing liberalization. The most powerful effect of this was the widespread loss of belief in the effectiveness of command economies. With the end of the USSR the major ideological opponent of capitalism collapsed. World historical event -> world-wide change in outcomes is too big a correlation to dismiss. That said it's tough to tease out what is driving what, economics or demographics. I do think that human flourishing occurs when ideology gets out of the way of individuals pursuing their own interests, whether their interests include opening a small business or not birthing children for the motherland. So I am not able to say, "it's because of capitalism," or, "it's because of contraception and female education." I am confident that we can say, "ideology and authoritarianism make things worse."

manigandham 8y ago

Better technology, which has led to incredible productivity and increased quality of life. This was in part natural advancement as it is exponential and we eventually just hit explosive growth, but the environment was helped along with capitalism, free markets, and major world wars which encouraged the spread of information and trade.

jopsen 8y ago

For all the criticism of how wages have stalled in the west, in the world as whole capitalism does pretty well :) But the toxicity of capitalism often stems from the polarized debate, I don't actually think many wants capitalism without regulation, or communism without free property rights... but it's hard to argue for the sane middle ground when you're attacked from both sides.

simonh 8y ago
Personally I think wage stagnation has largely been due to huge reserves of labour in the developing world coming into the market. The worst thing you can say about capitalism in that regard is that it's Capitalism that has enabled those people to raise themselves out of poverty and contribute and participate in the global economy. How terrible! However those reserves of labour are largely getting tapped out. Wages for factory workers in China have been rising dramatically for a while now. There are other challenges coming , such as increased automation, but again that's not really directly the fault of capitalism. Meanwhile while wage growth has slowed, we've all benefited hugely from the cheap goods and services enabled by these changes. I really think it's much more about technological and demographic changes rather than capitalism per se. If anything, we've suffered from too much economic development, technological advances and global growth.
- r_smart 8y ago
  One of the things people often seem to overlook in the US is that at about the time the wage stagnation started, we also began the process of roughly doubling the workforce by removing barriers against women entering the labor market. Then, as you say, another labor surplus was generated as the developing world has come into the market. It's rarely as simple as supply and demand, but there seems to me to be a correlation between stagnant wages and large increases in the labor pool.
  - simonh 8y ago
    And house prices as well, particularly here in the UK. Households increased their earning power through female employment, then used that capital to bid up house prices against each other.

cf141q5325 8y ago

It would be kind of bleak if there wasnt a reduction in extreme poverty if you consider at which speed we burn through not replenishable natural resources. Defacto free energy in form of fossil fuel and a lack of large wars in the population riches regions of the world can do wonders.

Certhas 8y ago

It's a million improvements in a million individual situations. It's public programs to raise health and educate people made feasible by economic growth. It's happened in countries with vastly different systems in very different parts of the world for the last century. The biggest reason for reduction in extreme poverty over the last decades is the responsibility of the Chinese state. The fastest drop in family size ever was overseen by the totalitarian Iranian government. Beware easy one line explanations.

vlehto 8y ago
...responsibility of Chinese state to adopt capitalist strategies of generating wealth. Thats the big thing they did different from soviet union. Everything else they do is pretty run of the mill geopolitical selfishness.

SpecialistEMT 8y ago

As a radical leftist, when im criticizing capitalism, im not saying that it's worse than what we had in the past, but that we are doing way less than we could to have a better system.

cheschire 8y ago
Hmm. Left-wing politics is about liberalism and equality, yes? I believe what you meant was as a radical progressive, which is more focused on reforming and improving society. That liberalism is associated with progressivism seems to take away from progressive right-wingers which may believe in the inherent inequality of certain inevitable social structures, but work to abolish or reform broken regulation. I do not intend to imply my political beliefs here. I'm simply saying perhaps you meant progressive.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Left-wing politics is about liberalism and equality, yes? No. Not in either of the sensed “liberalism” is currently used. Equality, yes, in a manner particularly opposed to the structural inequities of capitalism, but not liberalism, which is either about capitalism or a viewpoint which seeks to maintain capitalism a while moderating certain inequities within it, depending on which of th current usages of “liberalism” you refer to. > I believe what you meant was as a radical progressive “Radical progressive” is a phrase used in US politics go refer to a certain range of left-wing positions. > That liberalism is associated with progressivism It's not, though one of the senses of liberalism is adjacent to progressivism. > seems to take away from progressive right-wingers While the term “progressive right-wingers” may not be nonsensical in some historical usages of “progressive”, it is simply oxymoronic in the current usage. > which may believe in the inherent inequality of certain inevitable social structures, but work to abolish or reform broken regulation. You seem to be using “progressive” as simply anyone who seeks change from the status quo to realize their political values, which is a novel use. The grandparent used “radical leftist” correctly.
  - cheschire 8y ago

qubax 8y ago

> Does anyone know exactly why? I conjecture to say it's broadly the result of capitalism. This is a tricky question. Easily the biggest factor is china. China being the most populous nation was the largest source of poverty a few decades ago and now is the largest source of reduction of poverty. They lifted 680 million people out of poverty by 2010. Today, that number is probably approaching 800 or 900 million due to their economic growth. https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end-of-poverty https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/06/01/towards-the-end... So do we credit the "communism" of the chinese communist party? Do we credit capitalism? Do we credit chinese communism management of capitalism? Do we credit foreign investment? Chinese entrepreneurship? It all depends on your political bias. Success has a thousand fathers, failure is an orphan. Also, poverty is a very political/strange concept. A poor city dweller struggling to make ends but who has a smartphone and nice sneakers will not be in poverty. But a farmer who owns his land, is independent and grows enough food to live comfortably but has no smartphones or sneakers would be seen as being in exreme poverty. Ultimately, reduction of poverty is simply a result of moving farmers and stuffing them into large cities and how dependent they are on the "state". The less poverty you are in, the more you are dependent on society for life's essentials. Also, poverty decreasing is great, but in the same time period, wealth inequality has increased drastically. Imagine poverty of weapons. Both of us are in extreme weapons poverty ( we have no weapons ). You get a nerf gun and I get a shotgun. Weapons poverty is wiped out. We should celebrate right? It's "great" that poverty decreased, but the differential in power between me and you skyrocketed. Look at china. Their poverty has decreased dramatically. But the power differential between the powerful and everyone else has increased dramatically as wealth inequality skyrocketed. Is this really a good thing? The wealth inequality funding "digital dictatorship" and tyranny? This is the same diversion tactic some people use about wealth not being a zero sum game. In purely terms of wealth, it is not a zero sum game. But wealth translates into power. And power certainly is a zero sum game. So if you got $10 and I got $10,000,000, in terms of wealth, both of us are doing better. But in terms of power, my power increased drastically while yours barely budged. > I really feel like it's a shame that word is almost toxic in intellectual circles. It is because it's opinions based on political biases. But economists and political "scientists" do a great job lying to us that their field is a "science" with the same credibility of physics. It is not. There is no objective truth because it's not in the realm of the empirical but societal/political. You'd have less toxicity in a debate between a christian, jew and muslim on who is the one true god.

mpax 8y ago

It’s due to return on energy investment going up due to new productive technologies, aka “capital”. “Capitalism” is an orthogonal issue. To put it in Marxian terms, you can have a socialist community with a capitalist mode of production. The way new capital reaches the third world can be attributed to globalization of market circuits, for instance, China is currently investing into Africa much like the first world did to China in the past. Of course, if you define the terminology differently, say you’re an Austrian Economist, the above explanation might appear unintelligable.

MarkMc 8y ago

Pinker has a pretty good explanation in his book, "Enlightenment Now". His answer boils down to: 1. More people now live in a market economy which produces more goods and services for everyone, even poor people 2. Better leadership. Eg. In 1976 Mao in a single act greatly improved the trajectory of most of the world's poor - he died. 3. End of cold war meant end of US and Soviet support for many civil wars and ugly dictatorships. 4. Globalization and industrialization 5. Science and technology