5 ms·

> 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

by 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.

owenversteeg 8y ago
That's a really interesting comment, thanks. In particular your note about the decrease in poverty but the vast new wealth differential. I think China is moving towards a government that can never be overthrown, which has some scary implications. I think there's two main things driving that: the large wealth differential as you said, and the improvement of technology. Eventually, China will get to the point of being able to stop even the idea of revolution: people could be reeducated at the slightest hint of revolutionary ideas.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  > I think China is moving towards a government that can never be overthrown We've seen that before. The Thousand-year Reich lasted 12 years. Communism in Russia was untouchable... until it wasn't. Right now the government of North Korea looks unchangeable, and China and Iran look close. But I predict that, in a generation, at least two out of the three will be gone.
  - owenversteeg 8y ago
    The thing is that this time it's different. A revolution has to form somewhere. How will it form when every single citizen can be monitored for compliance 24/7? Everywhere you go, everyone you talk to, everything you do is tracked and analyzed. In the past, the government can't do anything to stop a revolutionary until they've become known as one. But in China they'll be able to stop revolutionaries before they become revolutionaries. At the first hint of anti-establishment sentiment someone can be instantly reeducated. Say there's mass economic strife, and people want to revolt. Ten people suddenly get the idea to overthrow the government. They organize a get together in the woods, with no technology allowed. Facial recognition can tell the ten of them joined as a group, logs showed they all did not use any technology for a period of hours, they weren't seen in any camera or microphone database for hours... Hmm, very suspicious. An automated system can and will recognize these factors and the group will be quickly sent for reeducation. Once the technology passes a tipping point, there's simply no way back. The technology enables the existing power structure to be maintained forever. And that's assuming human soldiers are involved. At some point - maybe 50 or maybe 150 years from now - robotics will be advanced enough that you won't even need cooperation of soldiers, and at that point the entire population can be controlled with the push of a button.

by qubax 8y ago

owenversteeg 8y ago

That's a really interesting comment, thanks. In particular your note about the decrease in poverty but the vast new wealth differential. I think China is moving towards a government that can never be overthrown, which has some scary implications. I think there's two main things driving that: the large wealth differential as you said, and the improvement of technology. Eventually, China will get to the point of being able to stop even the idea of revolution: people could be reeducated at the slightest hint of revolutionary ideas.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
> I think China is moving towards a government that can never be overthrown We've seen that before. The Thousand-year Reich lasted 12 years. Communism in Russia was untouchable... until it wasn't. Right now the government of North Korea looks unchangeable, and China and Iran look close. But I predict that, in a generation, at least two out of the three will be gone.
- owenversteeg 8y ago
  The thing is that this time it's different. A revolution has to form somewhere. How will it form when every single citizen can be monitored for compliance 24/7? Everywhere you go, everyone you talk to, everything you do is tracked and analyzed. In the past, the government can't do anything to stop a revolutionary until they've become known as one. But in China they'll be able to stop revolutionaries before they become revolutionaries. At the first hint of anti-establishment sentiment someone can be instantly reeducated. Say there's mass economic strife, and people want to revolt. Ten people suddenly get the idea to overthrow the government. They organize a get together in the woods, with no technology allowed. Facial recognition can tell the ten of them joined as a group, logs showed they all did not use any technology for a period of hours, they weren't seen in any camera or microphone database for hours... Hmm, very suspicious. An automated system can and will recognize these factors and the group will be quickly sent for reeducation. Once the technology passes a tipping point, there's simply no way back. The technology enables the existing power structure to be maintained forever. And that's assuming human soldiers are involved. At some point - maybe 50 or maybe 150 years from now - robotics will be advanced enough that you won't even need cooperation of soldiers, and at that point the entire population can be controlled with the push of a button.