4 ms·

Capitalism (or more specifically, elements of it like private ownership and the market economy) has resulted in the largest increase of living standards in hist

Capitalism (or more specifically, elements of it like private ownership and the market economy) has resulted in the largest increase of living standards in history. See: China, India, ex-USSR countries like Poland.

tored 3y ago
Market economy is not necessary the same as capitalism, China is capitalist in some parts but it also a heavy state subsidized economy with a regulated market and public ownership. And the massive increase in living standard can be attributed to multiple factors that was all needed to make it possible, superposition as it is called in physics, e.g. a proper contracting framework, a literate and educated public, technological advances, deregulating markets from the old estates system, etc. We can take Sweden as a good example, yes the legislative change in 1864[1] that anyone could operate a business was crucial, but where did all the talent come from that actually created all those famous Swedish companies and inventions? Many came from the Swedish Army because Sweden was an old Great Power and the army needed many engineers to be able to build fortifications and such. Two of the most famous ones would be Nils Ericson[2] and his younger brother John Ericsson[3] But you also need qualified workers and it happens that Sweden had at the time one of the most literate population in the world because of the Swedish state church. In the old days Sweden was quite strict religiously and the Swedish state church had conducted Household Examinations since 1686[4] about general knowledge in the Bible and Luther's Small Catechism. You can't really run a modern industry with an illiterate public. Thus attributing everything to "capitalism" is gross simplification of history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_Trade_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson [4] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r
- keiferski 3y ago
  Answer a simple question for me: Compared to fifty years ago, are the economies of China and Poland more or less capitalist? And if the increase in the quality of life for those two places isn’t from transitioning from communist/Soviet mechanisms to more capitalist ones, what do you attribute it to?
  - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
    You can stuff anything in a pigeonhole if you try hard enough. Sure there are Polish and Chinese capitalism, but it's at an individual level. At other levels (corporate and services etc) it's different. And so on. Describe the whole system, or we're just making sophomoric comments which don't help with understanding. "It's really just capitalism!" doesn't begin to cover the cases.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I don’t think it’s that complicated of a question, and you’d be pretty hard pressed to argue that the economies aren’t more capitalist compared to their predecessors.
      - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
        Agreed. But nothing is simple; they aren't simply capitalist now.
  - tored 3y ago
    China and Poland has definitely got it better with less communism, but what is "more or less capitalist"? I also notice that you completely ignored my reply.
    - keiferski 3y ago
      I ignored the rest of your reply because I specifically used China and Poland as examples. The relevance of Sweden in the 1800s is unclear to me and you didn’t tie that to the comment chain. People on HN sometimes have this tendency to throw up a bunch of unrelated citations that have nothing to do with the main point, then expect the replies to address each one. I agree that everything can’t be summarized as a simple cause effect, but the parent comment I replied to was about comparing capitalism to communism, hence my usage of examples of states that went from communist to capitalist. In other words, this isn’t theoretical. We have examples of a capitalist state succeeding, when it was formerly communist. Again, Sweden in the 1800s is not particularly relevant here.
TotalCrackpot 3y ago
Consider that USSR was always a capitalist country, we didn't really have socialism in a lot of places, we mostly had Marxist-Leninist state capitalist states that nationalize means of production, still leaving for example the wage work relation intact.

tored 3y ago

Market economy is not necessary the same as capitalism, China is capitalist in some parts but it also a heavy state subsidized economy with a regulated market and public ownership. And the massive increase in living standard can be attributed to multiple factors that was all needed to make it possible, superposition as it is called in physics, e.g. a proper contracting framework, a literate and educated public, technological advances, deregulating markets from the old estates system, etc. We can take Sweden as a good example, yes the legislative change in 1864[1] that anyone could operate a business was crucial, but where did all the talent come from that actually created all those famous Swedish companies and inventions? Many came from the Swedish Army because Sweden was an old Great Power and the army needed many engineers to be able to build fortifications and such. Two of the most famous ones would be Nils Ericson[2] and his younger brother John Ericsson[3] But you also need qualified workers and it happens that Sweden had at the time one of the most literate population in the world because of the Swedish state church. In the old days Sweden was quite strict religiously and the Swedish state church had conducted Household Examinations since 1686[4] about general knowledge in the Bible and Luther's Small Catechism. You can't really run a modern industry with an illiterate public. Thus attributing everything to "capitalism" is gross simplification of history. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_Trade_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decree_of_Extended_Freedom_of_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Ericson [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ericsson [4] https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husf%C3%B6rh%C3%B6r

keiferski 3y ago
Answer a simple question for me: Compared to fifty years ago, are the economies of China and Poland more or less capitalist? And if the increase in the quality of life for those two places isn’t from transitioning from communist/Soviet mechanisms to more capitalist ones, what do you attribute it to?
- JoeAltmaier 3y ago
  You can stuff anything in a pigeonhole if you try hard enough. Sure there are Polish and Chinese capitalism, but it's at an individual level. At other levels (corporate and services etc) it's different. And so on. Describe the whole system, or we're just making sophomoric comments which don't help with understanding. "It's really just capitalism!" doesn't begin to cover the cases.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I don’t think it’s that complicated of a question, and you’d be pretty hard pressed to argue that the economies aren’t more capitalist compared to their predecessors.
    - JoeAltmaier 3y ago
      Agreed. But nothing is simple; they aren't simply capitalist now.
- tored 3y ago
  China and Poland has definitely got it better with less communism, but what is "more or less capitalist"? I also notice that you completely ignored my reply.
  - keiferski 3y ago
    I ignored the rest of your reply because I specifically used China and Poland as examples. The relevance of Sweden in the 1800s is unclear to me and you didn’t tie that to the comment chain. People on HN sometimes have this tendency to throw up a bunch of unrelated citations that have nothing to do with the main point, then expect the replies to address each one. I agree that everything can’t be summarized as a simple cause effect, but the parent comment I replied to was about comparing capitalism to communism, hence my usage of examples of states that went from communist to capitalist. In other words, this isn’t theoretical. We have examples of a capitalist state succeeding, when it was formerly communist. Again, Sweden in the 1800s is not particularly relevant here.

TotalCrackpot 3y ago

Consider that USSR was always a capitalist country, we didn't really have socialism in a lot of places, we mostly had Marxist-Leninist state capitalist states that nationalize means of production, still leaving for example the wage work relation intact.