2 ms·

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 i

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

> 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