3 ms·

That is not what the data shows, nor is it what economists who have spent decades studying development believe: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer https://ww

That is not what the data shows, nor is it what economists who have spent decades studying development believe: https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer https://www.ted.com/talks/paul_romer http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-billion-people-have-been-taken-out-extreme-poverty-20-years-world-should-aim http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21578665-nearly-1-bill... http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-glo...

goodpoint 4y ago
That stuff is incredibly misleading and based on cherry-picking data.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  This is standard economics, from experts who have studied development for decades. The massive decline seen in poverty over the last 50 years is a matter of fact, with broad consensus that it has occurred. It's just inconvenient to your victimhood narrative.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    No one denies the massive decline of poverty. It's not due to pure capitalism which did nothing to lift people out of poverty in countries where it originated until governments stepped in and reigned it in. Now this is exactly the narrative you chose to ignore because it's inconvenient to your narrative.
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      The economists, who study this, overwhelmingly disagree. There are numerous examples given in the three articles I cited of a transition to greater capitalism being associated with more rapid economic development and poverty reduction, and you made the unsubstantiated claim that these are cherry-picking. There is no evidence at all to support the idea that redistributive social programs, or regulations, accelerated poverty reduction. The exact opposite is indicated by the data. I'm happy to compare actual data and case studies with you, but it appears that you are not willing to have a meaningful debate on this.
dmitriid 4y ago
The data you linked isn't about unrestricted unlimited capitalism. Everywhere "capitalism" lifted people out of poverty you'll find it only happened after limitations, checks and balances, and regulations were placed on capitalism.
- CryptoPunk 4y ago
  If you read the articles linked, and look at the other studies done on global development, you see that the places that did the most to lift those limitations and regulations, that disrupt the natural checks and balances of the market, saw the greatest improvement in quality of life. That is why there is a strong and persistent negative correlation between government spending, as a percentage of GDP, and the rate of economic growth: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl... The government limiting its role to vigorously defending people's security of person and private property, and enforcing contracts, is the best way we have come up with to facilitate economic development.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    You're confusing authoritarian governments with limitations on capitalism. We already had unlimited capitalism. It had child labor, literally poison as "medicine" [1] etc. In modern times unrestricted capitalism keeps doing the same: from sweatshops all over Asia to things like Nestle literally dissuading mothers from breastfeeding in developing nations which led to widespread problems like, you know, children dying. [1] See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse)?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse)?wprov=sfti1
    - CryptoPunk 4y ago
      >>You're confusing authoritarian governments with limitations on capitalism. I am not. Economists specifically cite the liberalization of the economy as a major contributor to the decline in poverty, through its positive impact on the rate of economic development. >>In modern times unrestricted capitalism keeps doing the same: from sweatshops all over Asia Before sweatshops, the quality of life in those countries was much worse. >>Nestle literally dissuading mothers from breastfeeding in developing nations which led to widespread problems like, you know, children dying That can be dealt with perfectly well within the rules of capitalism, which encourages prosecution of fraud, and impartial civil courts where bad actors can be sued. This is also an anecdote, and says nothing about the broader impact on capitalism, which is captured by statistical evidence like the rate of poverty.

goodpoint 4y ago

That stuff is incredibly misleading and based on cherry-picking data.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
This is standard economics, from experts who have studied development for decades. The massive decline seen in poverty over the last 50 years is a matter of fact, with broad consensus that it has occurred. It's just inconvenient to your victimhood narrative.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  No one denies the massive decline of poverty. It's not due to pure capitalism which did nothing to lift people out of poverty in countries where it originated until governments stepped in and reigned it in. Now this is exactly the narrative you chose to ignore because it's inconvenient to your narrative.
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    The economists, who study this, overwhelmingly disagree. There are numerous examples given in the three articles I cited of a transition to greater capitalism being associated with more rapid economic development and poverty reduction, and you made the unsubstantiated claim that these are cherry-picking. There is no evidence at all to support the idea that redistributive social programs, or regulations, accelerated poverty reduction. The exact opposite is indicated by the data. I'm happy to compare actual data and case studies with you, but it appears that you are not willing to have a meaningful debate on this.

dmitriid 4y ago

The data you linked isn't about unrestricted unlimited capitalism. Everywhere "capitalism" lifted people out of poverty you'll find it only happened after limitations, checks and balances, and regulations were placed on capitalism.

CryptoPunk 4y ago
If you read the articles linked, and look at the other studies done on global development, you see that the places that did the most to lift those limitations and regulations, that disrupt the natural checks and balances of the market, saw the greatest improvement in quality of life. That is why there is a strong and persistent negative correlation between government spending, as a percentage of GDP, and the rate of economic growth: https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/uploads/335309_OptimalSizeOfGovernment.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20170821004405/http://ime.bg/upl... The government limiting its role to vigorously defending people's security of person and private property, and enforcing contracts, is the best way we have come up with to facilitate economic development.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  You're confusing authoritarian governments with limitations on capitalism. We already had unlimited capitalism. It had child labor, literally poison as "medicine" [1] etc. In modern times unrestricted capitalism keeps doing the same: from sweatshops all over Asia to things like Nestle literally dissuading mothers from breastfeeding in developing nations which led to widespread problems like, you know, children dying. [1] See, for example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse)?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_(horse)?wprov=sfti1
  - CryptoPunk 4y ago
    >>You're confusing authoritarian governments with limitations on capitalism. I am not. Economists specifically cite the liberalization of the economy as a major contributor to the decline in poverty, through its positive impact on the rate of economic development. >>In modern times unrestricted capitalism keeps doing the same: from sweatshops all over Asia Before sweatshops, the quality of life in those countries was much worse. >>Nestle literally dissuading mothers from breastfeeding in developing nations which led to widespread problems like, you know, children dying That can be dealt with perfectly well within the rules of capitalism, which encourages prosecution of fraud, and impartial civil courts where bad actors can be sued. This is also an anecdote, and says nothing about the broader impact on capitalism, which is captured by statistical evidence like the rate of poverty.