4 ms·
The data mentioned in the article says the exact opposite of "terrible idea" (see for example the "downstream financial gains" for long-term improvements in the
by perlgeek 14y ago
The data mentioned in the article says the exact opposite of "terrible idea" (see for example the "downstream financial gains" for long-term improvements in their situation).
So, I chose to give the data more weight than your arguing.
- temphn 14y agoHere is my data: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_cd&idim=country:CHN&dl=en&hl=en&q=china%20gdp https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&... I believe that the sustained, multidecadal, multitrillion dollar improvement in living standards of 1.2 billion people is a little more compelling than an NGO's spreadsheet. Capitalism scales.
- perlgeek 14y agoYour data doesn't contain a comparison to a control group that didn't employ capitalism, and has otherwise the same conditions. Also many countries where capitalism is at work don't strive like Chine. Which kinda suggests it's not only capitalism that makes China successful.
- temphn 14y agoBut of course there is a control group: China under Maoist communism, when they were desperately poor and the government murdered millions of people. Capitalism isn't the only necessary item, but when missing it's obviously missing: like in North Korea vs. South Korea, or East Germany vs. West Germany, or Cuba vs. Chile, or Maoist China vs. Taiwan/Hong Kong/Singapore. Charity doesn't enrich a nation for the simple reason that people stop giving once that other nation catches up even a little bit and isn't completely flat on its back.