3 ms·

Please avoid straw man arguments. I didn't say that China didn't use capitalism: I said that it didn't use unfettered capitalism. Its capitalism is strongly tin

Please avoid straw man arguments. I didn't say that China didn't use capitalism: I said that it didn't use unfettered capitalism. Its capitalism is strongly tinged by its authoritarian rule with the explicit goal of reducing poverty. The US, like China, continues to use a mixed approach to economic management in the form of regulated capitalism. The degree of regulation in the US has been declining since the 1950s, resulting in larger wealth inequalities and more poverty.

WalterBright 5mo ago
[flagged]
CamperBob2 5mo ago
On the subject of straw men, there is no such thing as "unfettered capitalism." That is something you invented to support your argument. Put another way, capitalism, like communism, is one of those pure ideologies that has never really been given a fair shake. In fact, human nature rules out the possibility of a fair trial for any pure ideology. We are political creatures, not ideological ones. If you really are beyond your high-school years, as your account age suggests, this should be obvious. Unsurprisingly, the most successful systems are those that have proven to be better at meeting human nature on its own terms. Hence the triumph of capitalism as it is practiced today, which for all its flaws has the advantage that you don't have threaten people at gunpoint to force them to engage in it.
- hackyhacky 5mo ago
  For all of your rah-rah capitalist boosterism, you failed to address the actual content of my argument, which is that the reason during the last 50 years that the China has had decreasing poverty, while the US has had increasing poverty, has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with restrictions on capitalism (or their absence).
  - CamperBob2 5mo ago
    As others have pointed out, that's a naïve and frankly incorrect reading of Chinese history, but it's also not something that can be addressed here.
    - hackyhacky 5mo ago
      It evidently can be addressed here, as you yourself mentioned. No one has yet pointed out to me why my reading is "naive and frankly incorrect," so feel free to be the first.
      - ivewonyoung 5mo ago
        I listed the reforms upthread that you ignored. All the reforms fit a capitalistic model, not just a free commerce model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231586 And of course, Mao's communism was very anti-capitalistic.
        hackyhacky 5mo ago
        All well and good but you still haven't addressed my point which is that China's reduction of poverty is due to its central control of wages, construction, and capital. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48236489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48236489
        CamperBob2 5mo ago
        An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
        hackyhacky 4mo ago
        Here is evidence. https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/china-the-land-of-less-pay https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/china-the-land-of-less...

WalterBright 5mo ago

[flagged]

CamperBob2 5mo ago

On the subject of straw men, there is no such thing as "unfettered capitalism." That is something you invented to support your argument. Put another way, capitalism, like communism, is one of those pure ideologies that has never really been given a fair shake. In fact, human nature rules out the possibility of a fair trial for any pure ideology. We are political creatures, not ideological ones. If you really are beyond your high-school years, as your account age suggests, this should be obvious. Unsurprisingly, the most successful systems are those that have proven to be better at meeting human nature on its own terms. Hence the triumph of capitalism as it is practiced today, which for all its flaws has the advantage that you don't have threaten people at gunpoint to force them to engage in it.

hackyhacky 5mo ago
For all of your rah-rah capitalist boosterism, you failed to address the actual content of my argument, which is that the reason during the last 50 years that the China has had decreasing poverty, while the US has had increasing poverty, has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with restrictions on capitalism (or their absence).
- CamperBob2 5mo ago
  As others have pointed out, that's a naïve and frankly incorrect reading of Chinese history, but it's also not something that can be addressed here.
  - hackyhacky 5mo ago
    It evidently can be addressed here, as you yourself mentioned. No one has yet pointed out to me why my reading is "naive and frankly incorrect," so feel free to be the first.
    - ivewonyoung 5mo ago
      I listed the reforms upthread that you ignored. All the reforms fit a capitalistic model, not just a free commerce model. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231586 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231586 And of course, Mao's communism was very anti-capitalistic.
      - hackyhacky 5mo ago
        All well and good but you still haven't addressed my point which is that China's reduction of poverty is due to its central control of wages, construction, and capital. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48236489 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48236489
        CamperBob2 5mo ago
        An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
        hackyhacky 4mo ago
        Here is evidence. https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/china-the-land-of-less-pay https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/china-the-land-of-less...