5 ms·

I'll ask this kind of leading question that I have my own thoughts about but I want to hear others'-- is it capitalism that is eradicating poverty?

andi999 5y ago
Plus globalisation. What else should it be?
- umvi 5y ago
  I agree that we largely have capitalism + globalization to thank for across the board wealth increase (or where wealth hasn't increased, the price of commodities has decreased) over the last century. However, state-run welfare programs, social safety nets, automation, etc. also play some role.
  - nickpp 5y ago
    Redistributive programs need something to redistribute in the first place, so the merit still belongs to the value creator - capitalism.
- jacobr1 5y ago
  + Technology
- hkt 5y ago
  Well, China has eradicated extreme poverty by means of communism. So that appears to be an option too. I'd be interested to see a relatively detached, objective analysis on the speed and extent to which poverty is alleviated by different social policies. There's some clear variation there that deserves analysis. Edit: misread the post I replied to, "could" as "should".
  - nickpp 5y ago
    China tried communism for years without much progress. Only when they allowed (controlled) capitalism they started enjoying the current results.
cryoz 5y ago
Yes.
sam0x17 5y ago
Definitely not. It's the regulation of capitalism that is driving this. This is why the countries where capitalism is most heavily regulated (nordic countries, some european countries) are cited throughout the article. Capitalism on its own with no regulation just devolves into corporate dystopia and corruption because the short term path of least resistance is always taken. When we experience progress it's because of thousands of well thought out regulations that steer capitalism, perhaps kicking and screaming, towards actual technological and societal progress. Conversely, when public policy is dictated by lobbyists and corporate interests, wealth disparity increases and progress ceases. Those that say "but capitalism is all about disrupting and innovating" are wrong -- capital will only innovate if it has no other choice. It would much prefer to simply buy out, price-fix, monopolize, crush via economies of scale, bribe, silence naysayers, acquire, etc., because these tactics and any tactics that maintain the status quo in which the corporation has been able to become successful are superior if left unregulated. If the only options you leave on the table for capital to take are options that are good for society, then you will see society improve. Imagine how much we could progress technologically, culturally, and societally if we were able to 100% remove corporate influence over politics and create regulations and guardrails that reward innovation and punish monopolization and exploitation.
- ryan93 5y ago
  Governments should have instituted a lot more regulations a thousand years ago to eliminate poverty.
  - InitialLastName 5y ago
    You joke, but there's no denying that the last millennium's trend of increasing government centralization, stability, control over the use of violence, and enforcement of property rights (in whatever systematic form they take) has been a factor in this reduction in poverty levels. Nothing is quite as good at causing desperate poverty cycles as most of your local infrastructure getting regularly forcibly undeveloped in a civil war, or the chaos of local resources getting stolen by whatever brigands show up.
bee_rider 5y ago
Capitalism is one tool in the economic toolkit. Capitalism isn't the only economic system, or even the only free-market economic system, just a very popular one. I wouldn't say a hammer builds a house, even if it is very useful. If poverty will be eliminated, my first guess is that humans will ultimately be the ones to do it.
- beepbooptheory 5y ago
  Who else would be the ones to eliminate poverty? Fish?
  - bee_rider 5y ago
    Well the comment I responded to suggested an abstract economic model might do it, so I don't think fish is any less ridiculous.
    - beepbooptheory 5y ago
      Ah I see what you mean now. I definitely like your humanist spirit, but I do not think history walks on its head.
otikik 5y ago
I will answer your question with another leading question: What do you think created poverty in the first place?
- icefox11 5y ago
  Poverty will never cease to exist. Some people in the USA consider themselves poor, while having cars, houses, access to food and potable water. I myself had the opportunity to visit a indigenous tribe in Brazil. They would be considered poor by many people in the US, but they don't feel poor. I was offered shelter and food. They were happy to be able to offer me something, and that made them feel rich. We should do what we can to bring basic and humane conditions to all. What comes after that is harder to manage. A mutable definition of poverty will always make it a moving target that is impossible to fulfill.
- marcusverus 5y ago
  I think your question assumes that poverty is somehow unnatural, as though the human animal is born with plenty and must be driven to poverty by some external force. But the masses have lived in poverty since the beginning of time,[0] because poverty is the state of nature. Anyone who says different is trying to sell you something. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty#historical-poverty-around-the-world https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty#historical-povert...
  - DarylZero 5y ago
    The human animal has to be restricted from accessing natural resources by other human animals in order to be made poor.
the_af 5y ago
Before we even attempt to answer this question: look at the article's URL, its title and its subtitle. The title posted here on HN is badly mangled and implies things not said in the actual article, or at least, not said with the implied emphasis.
zuminator 5y ago
I'd say it's modern technology that's eradicating poverty. You could make the argument that without capitalism we wouldn't have modern technology. But capitalism was around for centuries before we even got to the point where extreme poverty was on the retreat worldwide. And the most efficient engine for the eradication of poverty the world has ever seen, China, is arguably not capitalist. Joseph C. Sternberg, columnist for the WSJ, asserts that, "What makes a system capitalism rather than mere pursuit of capital is the ownership that brings with it both the motive to improve corporate performance (desire for profit) and the means to do so (control of the company’s management)," and argues that since investors in PRC firms have no control over management, it's not true capitalism. [0] Some might also suggest there's nothing intrinsic to capitalism that ensures that workers will get paid enough to escape poverty, and without parallel advances in the philosophy of human rights, there would no push to eradicate poverty. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-education-stocks-vie-variable-interest-entity-emerging-markets-11627575751 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-education-stocks-vie-vari...

andi999 5y ago

Plus globalisation. What else should it be?

umvi 5y ago
I agree that we largely have capitalism + globalization to thank for across the board wealth increase (or where wealth hasn't increased, the price of commodities has decreased) over the last century. However, state-run welfare programs, social safety nets, automation, etc. also play some role.
- nickpp 5y ago
  Redistributive programs need something to redistribute in the first place, so the merit still belongs to the value creator - capitalism.
jacobr1 5y ago
+ Technology
hkt 5y ago
Well, China has eradicated extreme poverty by means of communism. So that appears to be an option too. I'd be interested to see a relatively detached, objective analysis on the speed and extent to which poverty is alleviated by different social policies. There's some clear variation there that deserves analysis. Edit: misread the post I replied to, "could" as "should".
- nickpp 5y ago
  China tried communism for years without much progress. Only when they allowed (controlled) capitalism they started enjoying the current results.

cryoz 5y ago

Yes.

sam0x17 5y ago

Definitely not. It's the regulation of capitalism that is driving this. This is why the countries where capitalism is most heavily regulated (nordic countries, some european countries) are cited throughout the article. Capitalism on its own with no regulation just devolves into corporate dystopia and corruption because the short term path of least resistance is always taken. When we experience progress it's because of thousands of well thought out regulations that steer capitalism, perhaps kicking and screaming, towards actual technological and societal progress. Conversely, when public policy is dictated by lobbyists and corporate interests, wealth disparity increases and progress ceases. Those that say "but capitalism is all about disrupting and innovating" are wrong -- capital will only innovate if it has no other choice. It would much prefer to simply buy out, price-fix, monopolize, crush via economies of scale, bribe, silence naysayers, acquire, etc., because these tactics and any tactics that maintain the status quo in which the corporation has been able to become successful are superior if left unregulated. If the only options you leave on the table for capital to take are options that are good for society, then you will see society improve. Imagine how much we could progress technologically, culturally, and societally if we were able to 100% remove corporate influence over politics and create regulations and guardrails that reward innovation and punish monopolization and exploitation.

ryan93 5y ago
Governments should have instituted a lot more regulations a thousand years ago to eliminate poverty.
- InitialLastName 5y ago
  You joke, but there's no denying that the last millennium's trend of increasing government centralization, stability, control over the use of violence, and enforcement of property rights (in whatever systematic form they take) has been a factor in this reduction in poverty levels. Nothing is quite as good at causing desperate poverty cycles as most of your local infrastructure getting regularly forcibly undeveloped in a civil war, or the chaos of local resources getting stolen by whatever brigands show up.

bee_rider 5y ago

Capitalism is one tool in the economic toolkit. Capitalism isn't the only economic system, or even the only free-market economic system, just a very popular one. I wouldn't say a hammer builds a house, even if it is very useful. If poverty will be eliminated, my first guess is that humans will ultimately be the ones to do it.

beepbooptheory 5y ago
Who else would be the ones to eliminate poverty? Fish?
- bee_rider 5y ago
  Well the comment I responded to suggested an abstract economic model might do it, so I don't think fish is any less ridiculous.
  - beepbooptheory 5y ago
    Ah I see what you mean now. I definitely like your humanist spirit, but I do not think history walks on its head.

otikik 5y ago

I will answer your question with another leading question: What do you think created poverty in the first place?

icefox11 5y ago
Poverty will never cease to exist. Some people in the USA consider themselves poor, while having cars, houses, access to food and potable water. I myself had the opportunity to visit a indigenous tribe in Brazil. They would be considered poor by many people in the US, but they don't feel poor. I was offered shelter and food. They were happy to be able to offer me something, and that made them feel rich. We should do what we can to bring basic and humane conditions to all. What comes after that is harder to manage. A mutable definition of poverty will always make it a moving target that is impossible to fulfill.
marcusverus 5y ago
I think your question assumes that poverty is somehow unnatural, as though the human animal is born with plenty and must be driven to poverty by some external force. But the masses have lived in poverty since the beginning of time,[0] because poverty is the state of nature. Anyone who says different is trying to sell you something. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty#historical-poverty-around-the-world https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty#historical-povert...
- DarylZero 5y ago
  The human animal has to be restricted from accessing natural resources by other human animals in order to be made poor.

the_af 5y ago

Before we even attempt to answer this question: look at the article's URL, its title and its subtitle. The title posted here on HN is badly mangled and implies things not said in the actual article, or at least, not said with the implied emphasis.

zuminator 5y ago

I'd say it's modern technology that's eradicating poverty. You could make the argument that without capitalism we wouldn't have modern technology. But capitalism was around for centuries before we even got to the point where extreme poverty was on the retreat worldwide. And the most efficient engine for the eradication of poverty the world has ever seen, China, is arguably not capitalist. Joseph C. Sternberg, columnist for the WSJ, asserts that, "What makes a system capitalism rather than mere pursuit of capital is the ownership that brings with it both the motive to improve corporate performance (desire for profit) and the means to do so (control of the company’s management)," and argues that since investors in PRC firms have no control over management, it's not true capitalism. [0] Some might also suggest there's nothing intrinsic to capitalism that ensures that workers will get paid enough to escape poverty, and without parallel advances in the philosophy of human rights, there would no push to eradicate poverty. [0] https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-education-stocks-vie-variable-interest-entity-emerging-markets-11627575751 https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-education-stocks-vie-vari...