5 ms·

Sigh, I just can't understand why I keep trying to discuss anything with HN's resident Propertarians and their dogmatic private-property theology. > private pr

by jahaja 6y ago

Sigh, I just can't understand why I keep trying to discuss anything with HN's resident Propertarians and their dogmatic private-property theology. > private property rights - people keeping what they earn Interesting rhetoric given that there are usually Socialists suggesting that the workers should keep what they produce. But I guess the most important part is that the owners get to keep what they "earn"? > Assuming the resources of humanity are collectively owned and should be equally shared is not realistic. But why not much much better than today? > The private property ruleset has resulted in the massive increase in productivity Just repeating your gospels time and time about doesn't make them more true. > On a per capita basis, the world is not extremely rich.. It's rich in the sense of being able to provide the basic needs of people. But what incentive is that to your dear private property owners? To not have cheap labour with bad labour regulations? > It doesn't: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl... That's a long article, what part of it do you argue rejects that China doesn't represent a large part of the people raised from poverty? > We should praise the CCP for emulating Hong Kong's private property ruleset: > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... Once again a long article that seem to mostly be about some economist arguing for Charter Cities. Why don't you actually paste your point? > That was a problem before too. Thanks to the economic development the world has experienced, that problem has gotten less severe, especially for the subset living in the most extreme state of poverty. What is even your point with this world salad? The people are still in absolute poverty? Maybe that particular person has $2.30 per day instead, but so what if it doesn't cover basic expenses?

CryptoPunk 6y ago
>>Interesting rhetoric given that there are usually Socialists suggesting that the workers should keep what they produce. Workers have a right to what they produce under contract law.. that's why they're able to sell it under employment terms that guarantee them a wage for each hour they work. >>But why not much much better than today? Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand it. >>Just repeating your gospels time and time about doesn't make them more true. This according to economists who have studied development, like Nobel prize winner Paul Romer. The market reforms in numerous countries, including India and China, were followed by significant accelerations in their respective rates of economic development, and poverty eradication. >>That's a long article, what part of it do you argue rejects that China doesn't represent a large part of the people raised from poverty? Here: >>By best estimates, the number was down to around 700 million in 2015, and falling. The change is widespread, going far beyond China and India to include countries as far-flung as Indonesia, Mozambique, Ghana, Brazil, El Salvador, and Mongolia. In all, more than 60 developing countries around the world have seen a decline in the number of extreme poor, despite continued population growth. And the article says economists attribute this acceleration in development largely to the adoption of market institutions. >>Why don't you actually paste your point? Copy-pasting: >>At a time when much of East Asia was ruled by nationalist or Communist strongmen, Hong Kong’s colonial authorities put in place low taxes, minimal regulation, and legal protections for property rights and contracts; between 1913 and 1980, the city’s inflation-adjusted output per person jumped more than eightfold, making the average Hong Kong resident 10 times as rich as the average mainland Chinese, and about four-fifths as rich as the average Briton. Then, beginning around 1980, Hong Kong’s example inspired the mainland’s rulers to create copycat enclaves. Starting in Shenzhen City, adjacent to Hong Kong, and then curling west and north around the Pacific shore, China created a series of special economic zones that followed Hong Kong’s model. Pretty soon, one of history’s greatest export booms was under way, and between 1987 and 1998, an estimated 100 million Chinese rose above the $1-a-day income that defines abject poverty. The success of the special economic zones eventually drove China’s rulers to embrace the export-driven, pro-business model for the whole country. “In a sense, Britain inadvertently, through its actions in Hong Kong, did more to reduce world poverty than all the aid programs that we’ve undertaken in the last century,” Romer observes drily. This is hugely important, so I hope you don't retort with another dismissal. >>What is even your point with this world salad? The people are still in absolute poverty? Maybe that particular person has $2.30 per day instead, but so what if it doesn't cover basic expenses? My point is that the situation is better than it was before. Progress is being made. There's a difference in misery between living on $1 a day and living on $2.30 a day.
- jahaja 6y ago
  Can't you see that you're going in circles using the same flawed World Bank $1.90 number for all of your links and arguments? People under e.g. $5/d have not been raised from extreme poverty if the $1.90 should be said $5 to properly represent reality. > Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand it. That there's a dogma here where the only way for the rich world to help the poorer world is if the world are allowed to exploit their cheap labour to produce more wealth and produce for the already wealthier populations of developed countries. > going far beyond China and India to include countries as far-flung as This doesn't say anything about their proportions? > And the article says economists attribute this You should not assume economists to be objective.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    If a smaller percentage of the world is living on less than $1.90 a day than before, that means there's been an improvement. I don't see how you can even disagree with this, regardless of how you want to define 'extreme poverty'. >>People under e.g. $5/d have not been raised from extreme poverty What percentage of the world lives on less than $5 a day, and what was that percentage 30 years ago? >>That there's a dogma here where the only way.. That doesn't help me understand what you were asking me. Can you rephrase the question itself? >>This doesn't say anything about their proportions? Yes it does. This part in particular makes an assertion about the proportion of people who are in extreme poverty: >>In all, more than 60 developing countries around the world have seen a decline in the number of extreme poor, despite continued population growth. Maybe you don't want the establishment to be right about what kind of economic system works, and that's why you're so determined to dismiss evidence that it's working..? >>You should not assume economists to be objective. This conspiratorial view of Economics is no different than the paranoid view of Medicine exhibited by anti-vaxxers.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      > I don't see how you can even disagree with this, regardless of how you want to define 'extreme poverty'. I don't disagree that this would be an improvement, neither did Hickel in my first quote. However it's very much not at the jubilant level that's being spouted about by you among others - hence the suggestion to be a bit more humble. > Can you rephrase the question itself? Why should we accept that the only way to lift people out of poverty is by exploiting their cheap labour for a century for our own benefit when the resources are already available, just locally scarce? This is a sociopathic "what's in it for me?" state of affairs. > Yes it does. This part in particular makes an assertion about the proportion of people who are in extreme poverty: What? No, it doesn't! That's just listing a number of countries, not the amount of people in each country. > This conspiratorial view of Economics is no different than the paranoid view of Medicine exhibited by anti-vaxxers. This is both incredibly naive and unsurprisingly dogmatic.

by jahaja 6y ago

CryptoPunk 6y ago

>>Interesting rhetoric given that there are usually Socialists suggesting that the workers should keep what they produce. Workers have a right to what they produce under contract law.. that's why they're able to sell it under employment terms that guarantee them a wage for each hour they work. >>But why not much much better than today? Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand it. >>Just repeating your gospels time and time about doesn't make them more true. This according to economists who have studied development, like Nobel prize winner Paul Romer. The market reforms in numerous countries, including India and China, were followed by significant accelerations in their respective rates of economic development, and poverty eradication. >>That's a long article, what part of it do you argue rejects that China doesn't represent a large part of the people raised from poverty? Here: >>By best estimates, the number was down to around 700 million in 2015, and falling. The change is widespread, going far beyond China and India to include countries as far-flung as Indonesia, Mozambique, Ghana, Brazil, El Salvador, and Mongolia. In all, more than 60 developing countries around the world have seen a decline in the number of extreme poor, despite continued population growth. And the article says economists attribute this acceleration in development largely to the adoption of market institutions. >>Why don't you actually paste your point? Copy-pasting: >>At a time when much of East Asia was ruled by nationalist or Communist strongmen, Hong Kong’s colonial authorities put in place low taxes, minimal regulation, and legal protections for property rights and contracts; between 1913 and 1980, the city’s inflation-adjusted output per person jumped more than eightfold, making the average Hong Kong resident 10 times as rich as the average mainland Chinese, and about four-fifths as rich as the average Briton. Then, beginning around 1980, Hong Kong’s example inspired the mainland’s rulers to create copycat enclaves. Starting in Shenzhen City, adjacent to Hong Kong, and then curling west and north around the Pacific shore, China created a series of special economic zones that followed Hong Kong’s model. Pretty soon, one of history’s greatest export booms was under way, and between 1987 and 1998, an estimated 100 million Chinese rose above the $1-a-day income that defines abject poverty. The success of the special economic zones eventually drove China’s rulers to embrace the export-driven, pro-business model for the whole country. “In a sense, Britain inadvertently, through its actions in Hong Kong, did more to reduce world poverty than all the aid programs that we’ve undertaken in the last century,” Romer observes drily. This is hugely important, so I hope you don't retort with another dismissal. >>What is even your point with this world salad? The people are still in absolute poverty? Maybe that particular person has $2.30 per day instead, but so what if it doesn't cover basic expenses? My point is that the situation is better than it was before. Progress is being made. There's a difference in misery between living on $1 a day and living on $2.30 a day.

jahaja 6y ago
Can't you see that you're going in circles using the same flawed World Bank $1.90 number for all of your links and arguments? People under e.g. $5/d have not been raised from extreme poverty if the $1.90 should be said $5 to properly represent reality. > Can you rephrase the question? I don't understand it. That there's a dogma here where the only way for the rich world to help the poorer world is if the world are allowed to exploit their cheap labour to produce more wealth and produce for the already wealthier populations of developed countries. > going far beyond China and India to include countries as far-flung as This doesn't say anything about their proportions? > And the article says economists attribute this You should not assume economists to be objective.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  If a smaller percentage of the world is living on less than $1.90 a day than before, that means there's been an improvement. I don't see how you can even disagree with this, regardless of how you want to define 'extreme poverty'. >>People under e.g. $5/d have not been raised from extreme poverty What percentage of the world lives on less than $5 a day, and what was that percentage 30 years ago? >>That there's a dogma here where the only way.. That doesn't help me understand what you were asking me. Can you rephrase the question itself? >>This doesn't say anything about their proportions? Yes it does. This part in particular makes an assertion about the proportion of people who are in extreme poverty: >>In all, more than 60 developing countries around the world have seen a decline in the number of extreme poor, despite continued population growth. Maybe you don't want the establishment to be right about what kind of economic system works, and that's why you're so determined to dismiss evidence that it's working..? >>You should not assume economists to be objective. This conspiratorial view of Economics is no different than the paranoid view of Medicine exhibited by anti-vaxxers.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    > I don't see how you can even disagree with this, regardless of how you want to define 'extreme poverty'. I don't disagree that this would be an improvement, neither did Hickel in my first quote. However it's very much not at the jubilant level that's being spouted about by you among others - hence the suggestion to be a bit more humble. > Can you rephrase the question itself? Why should we accept that the only way to lift people out of poverty is by exploiting their cheap labour for a century for our own benefit when the resources are already available, just locally scarce? This is a sociopathic "what's in it for me?" state of affairs. > Yes it does. This part in particular makes an assertion about the proportion of people who are in extreme poverty: What? No, it doesn't! That's just listing a number of countries, not the amount of people in each country. > This conspiratorial view of Economics is no different than the paranoid view of Medicine exhibited by anti-vaxxers. This is both incredibly naive and unsurprisingly dogmatic.