6 ms·

it's magical thinking to believe that 'fixing' institutions will somehow fix society, especially for the poor. greater institutional efficiency will simply conc

it's magical thinking to believe that 'fixing' institutions will somehow fix society, especially for the poor. greater institutional efficiency will simply concentrate wealth faster. the same for UBI, which would lock in disparity rather than relieve it (by making extractive businesses more profitable, exacerbating inequalities). poverty isn't simply about money or possessions, but rather is fundamentally about opportunity and esteem, to meaningful work and fair wages first and foremost. that means, most importantly, lower profits and a radically different economic dynamic that doesn't place capital on a singular pinnacle. this is the elephant in the room that no politician really wants to address around poverty, because it'd directly oppose all of their wealthy backers in one fell swoop. it's exactly why we never get any movement, except hair-brained policies, like UBI, that are meant to surreptitiously funnel public funds into greedy private hands and make things worse for the poor in the long run.

vorpalhex 5y ago
The US, and most first world nations, have very low poverty compared to other nations - and that poverty has decreased over time. > that means, most importantly, lower profits and a radically different economic dynamic that doesn't place capital on a singular pinnacle Capitalism has been the most effective vehicle to reduce poverty in the 20th and 21st century. Communism, socialism and most hybrid attempts have been outright failures in comparison. That politicians don't want to embrace some other economic model isn't some conspiracy. It's just plain sense.
- clairity 5y ago
  11% isn't 'low poverty', especially in the richest of nations. it's vulgar. capitalism isn't some miracle that created the current american politicoeconomic environment. the single biggest (but not sole) factor (i.e., luck) in that was geographic: it just so happened 2 huge oceans separated us from the biggest war in history. cheerleading for capitalism is at best a non sequitur.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    11% is amazingly low when huge parts of the world are at 50% [1]. Obviously we should strive to be better still, but let's not pretend that isn't a huge accomplishment that wasn't possible for the last several millenia of modern human existence. This isn't the case just for the US but also for the UK and our fellow Europeans who also practiced Capitalism - even the ones who had to endure the great wars. You are welcome to suggest an alternative but you will have to support it. The choice of Capitalism seems critically important, along with the choice of some sort of Democracy. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-r...
    - clairity 5y ago
      i'm not interested in simplistic ideological battles, but note that the recovery of all those european economies, as well as japan's, were helped mightily by a relatively unscathed america, largely for ideological reasons to make your conclusion seem plausible. 11% is a fucking travesty for the richest nations in history whose overabundance is downright, shockingly monumental. we should have exactly zero people who don't have secure food, shelter, and a modicum of dignity. that's squarely on capitalism along with (republican[0]) democracy. [0]: not the political party; republics centralize power in the hands of representative 'elites', because we all know the msases are too stupid to know what's good for them.
      - vorpalhex 5y ago
        Fine then, you do better. I mean it's great to stand on mountains and tell everyone they're doing it wrong - but talk is free. You want to do better than 11%? Do it. You don't even need to get on a plane. Go talk to your local homeless community. Share your ideas about how you're going to put them all in homes. You can make sandwiches and distribute them if nothing else. Form a Non-Profit. Hire people. Make it happen. Prove us, the collective masses, too stupid to know what's good for us.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  > Capitalism has been the most effective vehicle to reduce poverty in the 20th and 21st century. Communism, socialism and most hybrid attempts have been outright failures in comparison. This is false dogma. China has been UNARGUABLY a wild success. Now subtract every human life that ended prematurely or was lived in relative poverty because the USA funded terrorists and facist overthrow of their democratically elected socialist government
  - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
    China had almost 90% of its population living in extreme poverty as recently as the 1980s. The tremendous reduction in that poverty rate (to less than 1% today) is attributable entirely to market-based reform.
    - clairity 5y ago
      yes, market-based reform, not capitalism per se. capitalism has no monopoly on markets, as markets predate all the -isms by many centuries. so that's not an argument for capitalism (for which capital is a central concern) but for decentralized, market-based systems, the fairer the better.
      - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
        To be more specific: it has been the result of a decrease in central planning, decollectivization, privatization of previously state-owned industries and private ownership of the means of production operated with profit as the motive.
mbrameld 5y ago
I think you misread. They're not saying that fixing institutions will fix poverty, how did you reach that conclusion? They're saying broken institutions impose a disproportionate burden on people living in poverty and potentially contribute to the perpetuation of poverty.

vorpalhex 5y ago

The US, and most first world nations, have very low poverty compared to other nations - and that poverty has decreased over time. > that means, most importantly, lower profits and a radically different economic dynamic that doesn't place capital on a singular pinnacle Capitalism has been the most effective vehicle to reduce poverty in the 20th and 21st century. Communism, socialism and most hybrid attempts have been outright failures in comparison. That politicians don't want to embrace some other economic model isn't some conspiracy. It's just plain sense.

clairity 5y ago
11% isn't 'low poverty', especially in the richest of nations. it's vulgar. capitalism isn't some miracle that created the current american politicoeconomic environment. the single biggest (but not sole) factor (i.e., luck) in that was geographic: it just so happened 2 huge oceans separated us from the biggest war in history. cheerleading for capitalism is at best a non sequitur.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  11% is amazingly low when huge parts of the world are at 50% [1]. Obviously we should strive to be better still, but let's not pretend that isn't a huge accomplishment that wasn't possible for the last several millenia of modern human existence. This isn't the case just for the US but also for the UK and our fellow Europeans who also practiced Capitalism - even the ones who had to endure the great wars. You are welcome to suggest an alternative but you will have to support it. The choice of Capitalism seems critically important, along with the choice of some sort of Democracy. [1] https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-rate-by-country https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/poverty-r...
  - clairity 5y ago
    i'm not interested in simplistic ideological battles, but note that the recovery of all those european economies, as well as japan's, were helped mightily by a relatively unscathed america, largely for ideological reasons to make your conclusion seem plausible. 11% is a fucking travesty for the richest nations in history whose overabundance is downright, shockingly monumental. we should have exactly zero people who don't have secure food, shelter, and a modicum of dignity. that's squarely on capitalism along with (republican[0]) democracy. [0]: not the political party; republics centralize power in the hands of representative 'elites', because we all know the msases are too stupid to know what's good for them.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      Fine then, you do better. I mean it's great to stand on mountains and tell everyone they're doing it wrong - but talk is free. You want to do better than 11%? Do it. You don't even need to get on a plane. Go talk to your local homeless community. Share your ideas about how you're going to put them all in homes. You can make sandwiches and distribute them if nothing else. Form a Non-Profit. Hire people. Make it happen. Prove us, the collective masses, too stupid to know what's good for us.
diordiderot 5y ago
> Capitalism has been the most effective vehicle to reduce poverty in the 20th and 21st century. Communism, socialism and most hybrid attempts have been outright failures in comparison. This is false dogma. China has been UNARGUABLY a wild success. Now subtract every human life that ended prematurely or was lived in relative poverty because the USA funded terrorists and facist overthrow of their democratically elected socialist government
- NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
  China had almost 90% of its population living in extreme poverty as recently as the 1980s. The tremendous reduction in that poverty rate (to less than 1% today) is attributable entirely to market-based reform.
  - clairity 5y ago
    yes, market-based reform, not capitalism per se. capitalism has no monopoly on markets, as markets predate all the -isms by many centuries. so that's not an argument for capitalism (for which capital is a central concern) but for decentralized, market-based systems, the fairer the better.
    - NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
      To be more specific: it has been the result of a decrease in central planning, decollectivization, privatization of previously state-owned industries and private ownership of the means of production operated with profit as the motive.

mbrameld 5y ago

I think you misread. They're not saying that fixing institutions will fix poverty, how did you reach that conclusion? They're saying broken institutions impose a disproportionate burden on people living in poverty and potentially contribute to the perpetuation of poverty.