3 ms·

"even though the data actually shows that the majority of the improvement comes from other brands of economic policy" Can you expand on this? Genuinely interes

by JanSt 8y ago

"even though the data actually shows that the majority of the improvement comes from other brands of economic policy" Can you expand on this? Genuinely interested.

sedor123 8y ago
They are referring to Chinese and other Southeast Asian policies, as Hickels said in his post. What they won't say is that those policies are fundamentally capitalist in nature. China's economy is capitalist at its core, with a super powerful state (that happens to be remarkably repressive to its citizens, an inconvenient fact Hickels simply ignores) that engages in protectionism for specific national industries. Hickels is trying to get us to implicitly assume that Chinese policies are socialist and that non-capitalist policy is responsible for their gains, but he won't say it directly because he knows that would be an outright lie.
- allworknoplay 8y ago
  I didn’t say markets are a bad way to value goods, man, I said china’s state planned and financed approach to the market has produced the gains Pinker is saying neoliberalism should get credit for. What we’re talking about here is the false idea that America’s approach to capitalism is responsible for very much of the global reduction in poverty, and whether we should consider other modes instead.
allworknoplay 8y ago
The statistics Hinkel cites are fairly clear: the bulk of the reduction in poverty (which he disputes in overall effect but agrees has happened at some scale) has been from economies like China that operate with very different economic strategies than the neoliberalism Pinker and Gates advocate. Read the article or listen to he podcast, they’re both good! :) And: apologies if I’m not being clear about something, unlike the below commenter seems to think I’m happy to expand on what I’m saying.

3 ms·

"even though the data actually shows that the majority of the improvement comes from other brands of economic policy" Can you expand on this? Genuinely interes

by JanSt 8y ago

"even though the data actually shows that the majority of the improvement comes from other brands of economic policy" Can you expand on this? Genuinely interested.

sedor123 8y ago
They are referring to Chinese and other Southeast Asian policies, as Hickels said in his post. What they won't say is that those policies are fundamentally capitalist in nature. China's economy is capitalist at its core, with a super powerful state (that happens to be remarkably repressive to its citizens, an inconvenient fact Hickels simply ignores) that engages in protectionism for specific national industries. Hickels is trying to get us to implicitly assume that Chinese policies are socialist and that non-capitalist policy is responsible for their gains, but he won't say it directly because he knows that would be an outright lie.
- allworknoplay 8y ago
  I didn’t say markets are a bad way to value goods, man, I said china’s state planned and financed approach to the market has produced the gains Pinker is saying neoliberalism should get credit for. What we’re talking about here is the false idea that America’s approach to capitalism is responsible for very much of the global reduction in poverty, and whether we should consider other modes instead.
allworknoplay 8y ago
The statistics Hinkel cites are fairly clear: the bulk of the reduction in poverty (which he disputes in overall effect but agrees has happened at some scale) has been from economies like China that operate with very different economic strategies than the neoliberalism Pinker and Gates advocate. Read the article or listen to he podcast, they’re both good! :) And: apologies if I’m not being clear about something, unlike the below commenter seems to think I’m happy to expand on what I’m saying.