4 ms·

> We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. This is false. Schooling has had nothing to do with it, c

> We have seen world wide that schools are THE most effective tool for lifting people out of poverty. This is false. Schooling has had nothing to do with it, capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not schooling.

bjornsing 4y ago
Isn’t basic schooling a prerequisite for successful capitalism though? (May sound snarky but a genuine question.)
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  This is a fair question. I would argue no. As the article alludes, schooling in general hinders/squishes the entrepreneurial (independent) spirits and instills a risk aversion behavior not conducive to starting a business. There an impressive list of billionaires that either dropped out of college, or didn't even attend (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Walt Disney, Debbi Fields, Mary Kay Ash, and Wayne Huizenga, just to name a few).
vkou 4y ago
> capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty This is false. Access to cheap energy, in the form of fossil fuels is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not capitalism. Without burning through millions of years of oil and coal in the span of a few centuries, we'd all still be farming and eating mud, regardless of which economic system were in play. Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past. Remove access to cheap energy, and it will collapse overnight, with misery and death on a scale the world has never seen.
- notch656a 4y ago
  What's your proposed mechanism for incentivizing me to efficiently provide energy to customers without capitalism? To invest in the capital intensive industries necessary to refine and extract this energy? Are you thinking a form of anarchism without property rights kind of situation, or more of a command economy?
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    Any of the systems used before the idea of capitalism was conceived would probably have done OK at reducing poverty, given incredibly cheap energy. Meanwhile, capitalism would have done very little to reduce poverty, without all that dirt-cheap energy. I think the poster's point was that, even if capitalism helped, the cheap energy from fossil fuels was the absolutely necessary part. Personally, I'd not be surprised if modern capitalism doesn't even work so well without cheap, abundant energy. Is it so effective when almost all your energy is human and animal, with a little water power on the side? I dunno. Maybe not much more effective than other approaches. Maybe even less effective.
- scarmig 4y ago
  Feudal and socialist systems had access to cheap energy, and they weren't nearly as successful at raising people out of poverty. In the case of classic centrally planned socialist states, they were likely worse for the environment during development than comparable capitalist states (cf USA vs USSR).
  - vkou 4y ago
    The USSR (When it was not actively in the middle of an existential war) was a dramatically more prosperous society than any other point in the region's history. As it turns out, rising tides lift all boats, and industrialization, whether in planned economies, or otherwise, is what lifts people out of poverty. But that industrialization can't happen without cheap energy. Energy is the critical factor, here.
- hitpointdrew 4y ago
  I agree that cheap energy is vital, but I would argue that my statement is still true and that cheap energy is part of capitalism. It is, no pun intended, the oil the allows the free market capitalist machine to run. It starts with cheap energy, but having cheap energy alone is useless and doesn't lift anyone out of poverty. It's the cheap energy that enterprises can build upon that lifts people out of poverty. > Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past. Barley limp along, maybe. As I mentioned above cheap energy alone is pretty much useless. North Korea has cheap energy, they aren't doing very well. Japan has cheap energy, and they are doing fantastic. The USSR had cheap energy, there were still bread lines. There has been no other institution, other than capitalism, that is done more to lift mass quantities of people out of poverty in such a short period of time. That said I do whole hardheartedly agree that cheap energy is the foundation and that if cheap energy goes away there will be millions of people that will die (but that is true weather a nation is capitalist or not).
thrown_22 4y ago
[flagged]
jcz_nz 4y ago
That’s just laughable. About a billion Chinese might disagree with this.
- notch656a 4y ago
  Didn't Chinese spend more time in school after more elements of capitalism were introduced and the command economy of "get in the fields for the public good" gave way to "participate in the world capitalist economy." I agree schooling seems an important link to increased wealth, but it seems bettering education is as much linked to better capitalizing on stock of tax-cattle and realizing the capital investment in the children allows them to better compete on the capitalists market so their tax money can be taken to fatten the government hogs.
npteljes 4y ago
This is false. Capitalism made children work from age 5. I do like it, all things considered, but it seems to work best (for all) with strong social programs and a load of protections and regulations.

bjornsing 4y ago

Isn’t basic schooling a prerequisite for successful capitalism though? (May sound snarky but a genuine question.)

hitpointdrew 4y ago
This is a fair question. I would argue no. As the article alludes, schooling in general hinders/squishes the entrepreneurial (independent) spirits and instills a risk aversion behavior not conducive to starting a business. There an impressive list of billionaires that either dropped out of college, or didn't even attend (Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Walt Disney, Debbi Fields, Mary Kay Ash, and Wayne Huizenga, just to name a few).

vkou 4y ago

> capitalism is what has lifted the most people out of poverty This is false. Access to cheap energy, in the form of fossil fuels is what has lifted the most people out of poverty, not capitalism. Without burning through millions of years of oil and coal in the span of a few centuries, we'd all still be farming and eating mud, regardless of which economic system were in play. Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past. Remove access to cheap energy, and it will collapse overnight, with misery and death on a scale the world has never seen.

notch656a 4y ago
What's your proposed mechanism for incentivizing me to efficiently provide energy to customers without capitalism? To invest in the capital intensive industries necessary to refine and extract this energy? Are you thinking a form of anarchism without property rights kind of situation, or more of a command economy?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  Any of the systems used before the idea of capitalism was conceived would probably have done OK at reducing poverty, given incredibly cheap energy. Meanwhile, capitalism would have done very little to reduce poverty, without all that dirt-cheap energy. I think the poster's point was that, even if capitalism helped, the cheap energy from fossil fuels was the absolutely necessary part. Personally, I'd not be surprised if modern capitalism doesn't even work so well without cheap, abundant energy. Is it so effective when almost all your energy is human and animal, with a little water power on the side? I dunno. Maybe not much more effective than other approaches. Maybe even less effective.
scarmig 4y ago
Feudal and socialist systems had access to cheap energy, and they weren't nearly as successful at raising people out of poverty. In the case of classic centrally planned socialist states, they were likely worse for the environment during development than comparable capitalist states (cf USA vs USSR).
- vkou 4y ago
  The USSR (When it was not actively in the middle of an existential war) was a dramatically more prosperous society than any other point in the region's history. As it turns out, rising tides lift all boats, and industrialization, whether in planned economies, or otherwise, is what lifts people out of poverty. But that industrialization can't happen without cheap energy. Energy is the critical factor, here.
hitpointdrew 4y ago
I agree that cheap energy is vital, but I would argue that my statement is still true and that cheap energy is part of capitalism. It is, no pun intended, the oil the allows the free market capitalist machine to run. It starts with cheap energy, but having cheap energy alone is useless and doesn't lift anyone out of poverty. It's the cheap energy that enterprises can build upon that lifts people out of poverty. > Remove capitalism, and industrialized society will still limp along, in a relatively prosperous manner compared to centuries past. Barley limp along, maybe. As I mentioned above cheap energy alone is pretty much useless. North Korea has cheap energy, they aren't doing very well. Japan has cheap energy, and they are doing fantastic. The USSR had cheap energy, there were still bread lines. There has been no other institution, other than capitalism, that is done more to lift mass quantities of people out of poverty in such a short period of time. That said I do whole hardheartedly agree that cheap energy is the foundation and that if cheap energy goes away there will be millions of people that will die (but that is true weather a nation is capitalist or not).

thrown_22 4y ago

[flagged]

jcz_nz 4y ago

That’s just laughable. About a billion Chinese might disagree with this.

notch656a 4y ago
Didn't Chinese spend more time in school after more elements of capitalism were introduced and the command economy of "get in the fields for the public good" gave way to "participate in the world capitalist economy." I agree schooling seems an important link to increased wealth, but it seems bettering education is as much linked to better capitalizing on stock of tax-cattle and realizing the capital investment in the children allows them to better compete on the capitalists market so their tax money can be taken to fatten the government hogs.

npteljes 4y ago

This is false. Capitalism made children work from age 5. I do like it, all things considered, but it seems to work best (for all) with strong social programs and a load of protections and regulations.