3 ms·

I followed this a little bit when it popped up on Twitter last week. The fight appears to be about whether rising global prosperity is helping poor people or m

I followed this a little bit when it popped up on Twitter last week. The fight appears to be about whether rising global prosperity is helping poor people or mostly just poor people in China; and around the edges, about whether your definition of poor is simply GDP, or includes other harder to quantify things like commons, or if you want to measure it against the US poverty line at purchasing power parity dollars. It's a kind of oblique attack on neoliberal globalist capitalism's potential to increase living standards for people at the bottom of the global income distribution. Hickel reckons Pinker and Gates and friends have been too self-congratulatory on the merits of neoliberalism. IMO globalist capitalism has increased living standards for the poorest people in countries that were well-run enough to take advantage of it, China in particular. But there's still lots of improvement possible and we shouldn't feel too smug about the current situation.

barry-cotter 8y ago
GDP per capita has increased everywhere but Africa and that appears to be improving now in Africa. Living standards as measured by deaths in childbirth, infant mortality, lifespan, healthy lifespan, education and literacy have improved almost everywhere, even in places with no economy of more dependent on aid like Afghanistan, Niger or Chad. The absolute number of people in poverty may not be declining much outside China but that’s a function of massive population growth, not a failure of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has brought more people out of poverty than anything else, and it’s not a close race.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "Neoliberalism has brought more people out of poverty" How about just Economic Liberalism, and good governance, and not 'Neoliberalism'? Because the neoliberals want government out of almost everything, so they can sell all those Africans Nike shoes for 50x the cost to be made. In between the two arguments there's a fair point: China's growth can't be characterized as 'neoliberal' or else they would be a total open market! But there are strong capital controls, a politicized currency etc. etc. so it can't be called 'neoliberal'. I think 'basic economic freedom' with 'intelligent governance' and possibly 'national strategies' in key areas like natural resources where it makes sense (i.e. Statoil in Norway) or education and healthcare where there is a dramatic need. And yes - even economic protectionism in certain areas.
harrumph 8y ago
> IMO globalist capitalism has increased living standards for the poorest people in countries that were well-run enough to take advantage of it, China in particular. But China is not a market economy and as such can't be described simply as an outpost of global capitalism. It has an aggressive, state-led industrial policy, it regulates the shit out of what it does, and it exercises enormous amounts of trade protections. It is a state that admits and fosters economic liberalism in areas, but is in no way a market economy otherwise. Pinker and Gates are here to tell us that neoliberal markets are what eradicate poverty when a) historically the reverse is true -- poverty has been exacerbated by colonialism wrought by neoliberals b) the example they keep harping on -- China -- isn't even an example of a market economy. IMO this world is in fact getting worse for most persons living here, and there is no doubt that mouthpieces for the status quo are invested to deny this in the language Pinker et. al, use. These denials are ahistorical horseshit and will be viewed on par with trepanation and eugenics, all the more with every inch of sea level rise.
- jhbadger 8y ago
  Modern China is definitely a "market economy" in every meaningful sense of the term. Unlike in Maoist times, there is no central planning committee deciding what should be manufactured and sold and private businesses make their own decision based on what they think will sell. Is there government intervention in the Chinese market? Of course, but that's true of every country -- even the US. The completely free market is just a theoretical concept never practiced anywhere at any time.
  - harrumph 8y ago
    They build cities...using their army. Your description of the country's general economic characteristics is off-the-charts wrong, and is especially wrong concerning the area where Pinker pretends that liberalized markets are why poverty in China has been in sharp decline.
    - jhbadger 8y ago
      There's no question that China is still an authoritarian country with a powerful military, but that's beside the point. You have to look at what has changed to stop making them poor. It's the new policy of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (their euphasism for capitalism)
jjcc 8y ago
Thanks for summaries. Inside China there are many years of experience of helping poor areas get out of poverty. After years of failure it has been widely known knowledge among developed area people that many historically poverty areas became poor largely because of the local people and subculture of the areas. Policies that very close to charity donation don't work I'm not talking about ethnic minority areas. It might be a big surprise to outsider that there exist such big differences among Han Chinese. Yes China is a big country with a big variety. There are less competitive and lazy Chinese Han people. Because all are Han Chinese there is no political correctness as taboo to talk about it. That's why the hard lesson is well known that a strong socialist policy like give a way free money will encourage the poor people stay in poverty. That can explain the Chinese aid to African usually in the form of loan. Interest can be low but it's very important that the money need to pay back so the borrowers will force to take responsibility and be accountable to get out of poverty. Free money doesn't work. Now the loan is distorted as "loan trap" in MSM which a lot of Chinese who know the lesson see as "blatant lie". Today with enough tax money the government can afford implement many socialist/liberal policy but still focus on build infrastructure , reduce tax, even provide free house, usually not free money. Maybe there are some exceptions mainly. Total capitalist policy also have problem. There are always less competitive people that can not catch up any way so they need charity like support. So mixed policy should have some balance.

barry-cotter 8y ago

GDP per capita has increased everywhere but Africa and that appears to be improving now in Africa. Living standards as measured by deaths in childbirth, infant mortality, lifespan, healthy lifespan, education and literacy have improved almost everywhere, even in places with no economy of more dependent on aid like Afghanistan, Niger or Chad. The absolute number of people in poverty may not be declining much outside China but that’s a function of massive population growth, not a failure of neoliberalism. Neoliberalism has brought more people out of poverty than anything else, and it’s not a close race.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"Neoliberalism has brought more people out of poverty" How about just Economic Liberalism, and good governance, and not 'Neoliberalism'? Because the neoliberals want government out of almost everything, so they can sell all those Africans Nike shoes for 50x the cost to be made. In between the two arguments there's a fair point: China's growth can't be characterized as 'neoliberal' or else they would be a total open market! But there are strong capital controls, a politicized currency etc. etc. so it can't be called 'neoliberal'. I think 'basic economic freedom' with 'intelligent governance' and possibly 'national strategies' in key areas like natural resources where it makes sense (i.e. Statoil in Norway) or education and healthcare where there is a dramatic need. And yes - even economic protectionism in certain areas.

harrumph 8y ago

> IMO globalist capitalism has increased living standards for the poorest people in countries that were well-run enough to take advantage of it, China in particular. But China is not a market economy and as such can't be described simply as an outpost of global capitalism. It has an aggressive, state-led industrial policy, it regulates the shit out of what it does, and it exercises enormous amounts of trade protections. It is a state that admits and fosters economic liberalism in areas, but is in no way a market economy otherwise. Pinker and Gates are here to tell us that neoliberal markets are what eradicate poverty when a) historically the reverse is true -- poverty has been exacerbated by colonialism wrought by neoliberals b) the example they keep harping on -- China -- isn't even an example of a market economy. IMO this world is in fact getting worse for most persons living here, and there is no doubt that mouthpieces for the status quo are invested to deny this in the language Pinker et. al, use. These denials are ahistorical horseshit and will be viewed on par with trepanation and eugenics, all the more with every inch of sea level rise.

jhbadger 8y ago
Modern China is definitely a "market economy" in every meaningful sense of the term. Unlike in Maoist times, there is no central planning committee deciding what should be manufactured and sold and private businesses make their own decision based on what they think will sell. Is there government intervention in the Chinese market? Of course, but that's true of every country -- even the US. The completely free market is just a theoretical concept never practiced anywhere at any time.
- harrumph 8y ago
  They build cities...using their army. Your description of the country's general economic characteristics is off-the-charts wrong, and is especially wrong concerning the area where Pinker pretends that liberalized markets are why poverty in China has been in sharp decline.
  - jhbadger 8y ago
    There's no question that China is still an authoritarian country with a powerful military, but that's beside the point. You have to look at what has changed to stop making them poor. It's the new policy of "socialism with Chinese characteristics" (their euphasism for capitalism)

jjcc 8y ago

Thanks for summaries. Inside China there are many years of experience of helping poor areas get out of poverty. After years of failure it has been widely known knowledge among developed area people that many historically poverty areas became poor largely because of the local people and subculture of the areas. Policies that very close to charity donation don't work I'm not talking about ethnic minority areas. It might be a big surprise to outsider that there exist such big differences among Han Chinese. Yes China is a big country with a big variety. There are less competitive and lazy Chinese Han people. Because all are Han Chinese there is no political correctness as taboo to talk about it. That's why the hard lesson is well known that a strong socialist policy like give a way free money will encourage the poor people stay in poverty. That can explain the Chinese aid to African usually in the form of loan. Interest can be low but it's very important that the money need to pay back so the borrowers will force to take responsibility and be accountable to get out of poverty. Free money doesn't work. Now the loan is distorted as "loan trap" in MSM which a lot of Chinese who know the lesson see as "blatant lie". Today with enough tax money the government can afford implement many socialist/liberal policy but still focus on build infrastructure , reduce tax, even provide free house, usually not free money. Maybe there are some exceptions mainly. Total capitalist policy also have problem. There are always less competitive people that can not catch up any way so they need charity like support. So mixed policy should have some balance.