3 ms·

> Yet we continue to treat it (economics, the global financial system) as some kind of inevitable force of nature, rather than as something that we invented and

> Yet we continue to treat it (economics, the global financial system) as some kind of inevitable force of nature, rather than as something that we invented and (to some degree) chose. I wish I knew why that is. This is well said, and I have been very frustrated by this in recent years, too. The simplest clue I have is to look at who benefits from this perspective, and what means they have to spread this idea in the public sphere and discourse.

JackFr 6y ago
> The simplest clue I have is to look at who benefits from this perspective Start with the billions of people lifted out of poverty. Never in history have so many people enjoyed such a high standard of living. The market isn't perfect and it isn't magic, and I don't mean to minimize climate change and other tragedies-of-the-commons, but in practice it's been very successful at improving peoples lives.
- poiuytrewqa 6y ago
  This is the first time I've heard that the financial system has lifted "billions" of people out of poverty. I thought that the financial system was the consequences of wealth rather than the cause (otherwise this doesn't explain why none of the African stock exchange are fighting with NYSE for the most attractive stock market)
  - UK-Al05 6y ago
    Private property, law, and markets is what lifts people out of poverty. Wealth inequality is a side effect as some people do better than others.
- ustolemyname 6y ago
  That could equally be a consequence of technological and scientific development than any particular economic structure.
  - jonfw 6y ago
    What motivates technological and scientific development?
    - ustolemyname 6y ago
      That is a problem that has not been thoroughly explored. What has been motivational historically, and what is necessary to motivate in the future, do not have to be the same. And even looking at history, the motivations of scientific development seems quite varied. War has been a key promoter of many fields of science, which has in turn lifted may people out of poverty. So we should have more world wars?
  - JackFr 6y ago
    But if everyone has access to the same scientific developments, then why the disparity in standards of living around the world? You might chalk it up to power structures, but that couldn’t explain the disparity in standard of living between the Soviet Union and Western Europe.
- metalliqaz 6y ago
  This is always attributed to the market, or capitalism, or some other such thing. Why is that? Citation please. The system not only encourages but requires inequality. Today's billionaires accumulated that wealth off the back of countless toiling workers, many doing so in miserable conditions. Why is it so clearly capitalism that lifted those people out of poverty, and not modern advances in technology, such as in food production, efficient transportation of goods, sanitation, and medicine?
  - JackFr 6y ago
    > Why is it so clearly capitalism that lifted those people out of poverty, and not modern advances in technology, such as in food production, efficient transportation of goods, sanitation, and medicine? Because of the evidence of India and China is compelling. https://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018 https://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018
    - JackFr 6y ago
      I think I provided the wrong link. To be clear, the Gap Minder tools show the majority of the improvement came to India and China after they opened their economies. https://www.gapminder.org/tools/ https://www.gapminder.org/tools/ And in fairness, 'capitalism' is a very imprecise term which often means different things to different people.
      - poiuytrewqa 6y ago
        I think that's a good comparison. Indeed while in China living condition of the middle class are good and comparable to what you can get in the west, and the low income class still have a fair access to basic needs (housing, water, toilet) this not exactly the same in India. So if the open market would be the only reason of the progress we should've seen something similar in the two countries. The only similarity that they both share is a growing disparity between high income class and low income class Also Chinese policy is more towards open trade than open market. I feel that complicated topic such as progress can't be condensed into one action that can deliver the expected results. In fact is always a combination of policy that bring the desired effect

JackFr 6y ago

> The simplest clue I have is to look at who benefits from this perspective Start with the billions of people lifted out of poverty. Never in history have so many people enjoyed such a high standard of living. The market isn't perfect and it isn't magic, and I don't mean to minimize climate change and other tragedies-of-the-commons, but in practice it's been very successful at improving peoples lives.

poiuytrewqa 6y ago
This is the first time I've heard that the financial system has lifted "billions" of people out of poverty. I thought that the financial system was the consequences of wealth rather than the cause (otherwise this doesn't explain why none of the African stock exchange are fighting with NYSE for the most attractive stock market)
- UK-Al05 6y ago
  Private property, law, and markets is what lifts people out of poverty. Wealth inequality is a side effect as some people do better than others.
ustolemyname 6y ago
That could equally be a consequence of technological and scientific development than any particular economic structure.
- jonfw 6y ago
  What motivates technological and scientific development?
  - ustolemyname 6y ago
    That is a problem that has not been thoroughly explored. What has been motivational historically, and what is necessary to motivate in the future, do not have to be the same. And even looking at history, the motivations of scientific development seems quite varied. War has been a key promoter of many fields of science, which has in turn lifted may people out of poverty. So we should have more world wars?
- JackFr 6y ago
  But if everyone has access to the same scientific developments, then why the disparity in standards of living around the world? You might chalk it up to power structures, but that couldn’t explain the disparity in standard of living between the Soviet Union and Western Europe.
metalliqaz 6y ago
This is always attributed to the market, or capitalism, or some other such thing. Why is that? Citation please. The system not only encourages but requires inequality. Today's billionaires accumulated that wealth off the back of countless toiling workers, many doing so in miserable conditions. Why is it so clearly capitalism that lifted those people out of poverty, and not modern advances in technology, such as in food production, efficient transportation of goods, sanitation, and medicine?
- JackFr 6y ago
  > Why is it so clearly capitalism that lifted those people out of poverty, and not modern advances in technology, such as in food production, efficient transportation of goods, sanitation, and medicine? Because of the evidence of India and China is compelling. https://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018 https://forms.gapminder.org/s3/test-2018
  - JackFr 6y ago
    I think I provided the wrong link. To be clear, the Gap Minder tools show the majority of the improvement came to India and China after they opened their economies. https://www.gapminder.org/tools/ https://www.gapminder.org/tools/ And in fairness, 'capitalism' is a very imprecise term which often means different things to different people.
    - poiuytrewqa 6y ago
      I think that's a good comparison. Indeed while in China living condition of the middle class are good and comparable to what you can get in the west, and the low income class still have a fair access to basic needs (housing, water, toilet) this not exactly the same in India. So if the open market would be the only reason of the progress we should've seen something similar in the two countries. The only similarity that they both share is a growing disparity between high income class and low income class Also Chinese policy is more towards open trade than open market. I feel that complicated topic such as progress can't be condensed into one action that can deliver the expected results. In fact is always a combination of policy that bring the desired effect