Capitalism in Action

[Rowls]

Come of it, Rowls, man! This is one of the most extreme cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed. It is abundantly clear that you've already decided you love capitalism, then looked at the graph, and concluded 'look how great it is!' It's an absurd conclusion.
If I were so inclined, I could just as easily look at the woeful performance between 1820-1917 and say 'capitalism in action'. And that wouldn't be helpful either.

That wouldn't be a fault in mis-reading the graph. That would be an error in your historical knowledge.

Until around 1990 less than half the world was capitalist.

[Rowls]

I think when you lie this brazenly we can all just ignore you. Your graph shows nothing of the sort since the 90s. It ends in the ******* 90s.

The graph ends in 2011.

[Hipper]

Is it really capitalism that has delivered any improvements, or democracy?

[Paul Waine]

Come of it, Rowls, man! This is one of the most extreme cases of confirmation bias I've ever witnessed. It is abundantly clear that you've already decided you love capitalism, then looked at the graph, and concluded 'look how great it is!' It's an absurd conclusion.

If I were so inclined, I could just as easily look at the woeful performance between 1820-1917 and say 'capitalism in action'. And that wouldn't be helpful either.

Hi if it be your will, there's no data on the graph about capitalism, or any other economic system. There are just three measures of poverty - two as IT notes end in early/mid-90s (estimated from chart) and the third which starts in 1980/1 and end approx 2010.

Let's assume that the data is limited by the ability to collect and interpret. Perhaps we can assume that the <$1.25/day is consistent with the (unseen) trend lines for the other two measures.

We should all pause for thought on measuring poverty as less than $1.25/day. Only if you've visited some of the slums in Africa or in India (or other parts of the world) is it possible to comprehend how this is possible. Perhaps we can also get a sense from our tv screens - though I think this is a lot harder. Note none of these regions are in Europe.

To interpret the chart as a measure of the success of economic systems does require us to know something of those systems and their timelines.
Yes, there have been a limited number of capitalist ventures operating in the 19th century and some in the 18th century and earlier - but very few. The greater part of the world was subsistence farming and hunter gatherers and feudalism and some isolated kingdoms. Adam Smith's "The Wealth of Nations" was published in 1776. Karl Marx published "The Communist Manifesto" in 1848 and "Das Kapital" in 1867. John Maynard Keynes' "The General Theory of Employment Interest and Money" was published in 1936. Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom" was published in 1962.

As Rowls says, the greater part of the economic systems of around the world were not capitalist until very recently.

[Paul Waine]

Interesting blog on World Bank (tag line: "working for a world free of poverty") site: "Unequal Opportunity Unequal Growth."

http://blogs.worldbank.org/developmentt ... ual-growth" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It proposed dealing with inequality of opportunity as the best way to pursue economic growth - and therefore create more opportunities to reduce world poverty.

It ends: "In curbing IO these policies promote not only social justice but plausibly also economic growth. It is unclear however where the push for such inclusive growth policies will be coming from, when those in power stand to gain the least from such policies."

[Hipper]

Equal opportunity, if it means what it says, is definitely a good thing, but unfortunately as we are not equal, some will make more of it then others leading to actual inequality. Indeed is that not what has happened over the last thirty years. In the past that inequality has been dampened by suitable taxes but that now seems to be both difficult to do, and frowned on.

The 'push' for such things should come from democracy.

[Rowls]

Is it really capitalism that has delivered any improvements, or democracy?

It's capitalism.

There is no democracy in China but they have cut poverty from 88% to 6%. This equates to a staggering 500 million people lifted out of poverty all in the space of 20-30 years.

Alternatively take South Africa with a half decent functioning democracy but little to no capitalism. Poverty levels have stayed the same as they were when Nelson Mandela was released.

That's two cases. One country has virtually freed itself from crippling poverty. In the same time (during massive growth of the global economy) the country who opted against capitalism has achieved nothing and arguably gone backwards economically.

That two examples but there are many, many more and the link between capitalism and people rising out of poverty gets stronger the more you examine it.

[JohnMcGreal]

This giant "leap" forward killed around 55 million people from starvation from the resulting famines.

Just for the sake of adding a bit of balance, around 30 million people died due to famine in both Ireland and India because of the British capitalist system at the time.

Both economic systems have more than their fair share of horrific and tragic consequences for large numbers of people.

[Rowls]

Interesting blog on World Bank (tag line: "working for a world free of poverty") site: "Unequal Opportunity Unequal Growth."

It proposed dealing with inequality of opportunity as the best way to pursue economic growth - and therefore create more opportunities to reduce world poverty.

It ends: "In curbing IO these policies promote not only social justice but plausibly also economic growth. It is unclear however where the push for such inclusive growth policies will be coming from, when those in power stand to gain the least from such policies."

They may have the best intentions but the westernized language they are using here is obscuring the cause. The kind of poverty we're talking about here doesn't really exist in the west and yet strangely they're co-opting the language of Scandinavian social democrats in an attempt to "tackle" poverty.

For clarity, when we're talking about "equality of opportunity" in this sense we're talking about very basic rights. The right of an African farmer to have the opportunity to sell their excess grain, the right of an Arab man not to have his market stall destroyed because he refused to pay a bribe to the police. We're not talking about things like toilets for transsexuals or having more black faces on TV.

Institutions like the UN would be better off simply declaring the simple steps a country can do to embrace capitalism and lift it's people out of poverty. The truth is there's very little that supra-national agencies can do to improve poverty rates. It HAS to be achieved by domestic governments.

You need the following factors in place and for them to work not just in theory but in practice:

1. Peace & Stable government
2. Property rights - the right to own property
3. Business rights - the right to set up a business
4. A legal framework for dispute resolution
5. Effective law and order

When those factors are in place it helps massively if the country reduces tariffs and embraces global trade.

[Rowls]

Just for the sake of adding a bit of balance, around 30 million people died due to famine in both Ireland and India because of the British capitalist system at the time.

Both economic systems have more than their fair share of horrific and tragic consequences for large numbers of people.

Not capitalist as we understand or use the term today JohnMcGreal. Typical of yourself to bring these examples into play.

The answer is simple - that's not really captialism for Indians or Irish is it? It's the actions of an Imperial nation on the road to capitalism.

Nation state capitalism is by a wide margin the best ever tool devised for lifting people out of poverty.

It is undeniable.

[JohnMcGreal]

Not capitalist as we understand or use the term today JohnMcGreal. Typical of yourself to bring these examples into play.

Just for the sake of adding a bit of balance, around 30 million people died due to famine in both Ireland and India because of the British capitalist system at the time

I know it wasn't capitalist as we understand the term today. That's why I said the capitalist system at the time. I've even quoted myself and put it in bold for you.

Enjoy your day.

[Rowls]

So we're agreed we're not talking about modern day capitalism. Which was like comparing oranges and apples.

Thanks

Enjoy your day also.

[Paul Waine]

For clarity, when we're talking about "equality of opportunity" in this sense we're talking about very basic rights. The right of an African farmer to have the opportunity to sell their excess grain, the right of an Arab man not to have his market stall destroyed because he refused to pay a bribe to the police. We're not talking about things like toilets for transsexuals or having more black faces on TV.

Equal opportunity, if it means what it says, is definitely a good thing, but unfortunately as we are not equal, some will make more of it then others leading to actual inequality. Indeed is that not what has happened over the last thirty years. In the past that inequality has been dampened by suitable taxes but that now seems to be both difficult to do, and frowned on.

The 'push' for such things should come from democracy.

Hi Rowls, Hi Hipper, did either of you read the World Bank blog?

The blog speaks about inequality of opportunity and identifies the solution as better education for all. It is speaking about education in India, in China and in all the states where a large proportion of the population suffer from desperate poverty (my phrase). It argues that better education leads to better economic growth, especially when the poor have access to the opportunity of education.

World Bank territory is "poverty in the lesser developed economies." I'm sure a number of their staff come from Western backgrounds, and I'm sure many of them come from privileged upbringings, but I doubt they are busy promoting the social agenda you describe, Rowls.

Equally, Hipper, the blog is not arguing that eliminating the inequality of opportunity will also eliminate inequality in outcomes, just that (my words) some of those who start out poor will also grow rich, given the opportunity, and, if this happens, we will all be a little bit richer.

[Paul Waine]

I know it wasn't capitalist as we understand the term today. That's why I said the capitalist system at the time. I've even quoted myself and put it in bold for you.

Enjoy your day.

Hi John, potato famine was bad. Suffering in India was also bad. Neither were the result of capitalism. Both were the result of British Imperialism - a very different thing.

I visited the Irish potato famine memorial in Manhattan in 2015, sited very close to the memorial to the Twin Towers.

[Lancasterclaret]

Er, Paul, you could argue that both were the result of rampant capitalism.

In both cases, the locals were either forced or their land taken to grow what was needed for the market.

*edit if JMC is talking about the indian famine of 1943, then the overwhelming reason for that was World war II and the need to feed the fighting/manufacturing bases.

[Imploding Turtle]

The graph ends in 2011.

Not the poverty lines.

[Paul Waine]

Er, Paul, you could argue that both were the result of rampant capitalism.

In both cases, the locals were either forced or their land taken to grow what was needed for the market.

*edit if JMC is talking about the indian famine of 1943, then the overwhelming reason for that was World war II and the need to feed the fighting/manufacturing bases.

Hi Lancs, I find it hard to blame "capitalism" for the events in Ireland or India - or many other of the events that are among the things "decent people" regret about the "British Empire." Yes, land in Ireland was held by absentee landlords and excessive rents were (often) charged to the tenant farmers, including the involvement of "middlemen" agents.

I know there are some posters who equate capitalism with Conservatives and the parties on the right - and, therefore, for them both of these things are bad. I don't make that judgement; it is equally possible for left-wing governments to embrace the "wisdom of the markets" rather than follow the mistakes of the centrally planned and politically motivated economies - which have also been mentioned above as the causes of starvation and the death of millions of the "state oppressed" populations: Stalin did this in the Soviet Union, Mao did the same in China and North Korea continues to suffer this way today. Bad governments are bad governments and bad people are bad people. Neither defines or has ever defined the best way to organise a market economy to provide the greatest good for the greatest number.

My heritage and my family's heritage is, in part, Irish Catholic. Maybe that heritage speaks in my social and political preferences.

[Rowls]

Hi Rowls, Hi Hipper, did either of you read the World Bank blog?

I didn't read it but didn't argue against what it said; I argued against the way it said it. I touched upon the way it approached tackling poverty too. I think it's got its fundamental approach wrong.

None of this is a direct criticism of what it actually says though.

[Paul Waine]

I didn't read it but didn't argue against what it said; I argued against the way it said it. I touched upon the way it approached tackling poverty too. I think it's got its fundamental approach wrong.

None of this is a direct criticism of what it actually says though.

Hi Rowls, I'm puzzled. How can you know what the blog said if you didn't read it? How can you know that "it's got its fundamental approach wrong?"

The blog's conclusion is that inequality of opportunity is a major negative for tackling poverty - and the best way to tackle inequality of opportunity is to ensure good quality education for those in poverty.

[LongsideFacingUp]

Smashing capitalism one messageboard post at a time!

Love it!

Keep fighting the good fight comrades!

*sent from my iPhone

[Imploding Turtle]

Hi Rowls, I'm puzzled. How can you know what the blog said if you didn't read it? How can you know that "it's got its fundamental approach wrong?"

The blog's conclusion is that inequality of opportunity is a major negative for tackling poverty - and the best way to tackle inequality of opportunity is to ensure good quality education for those in poverty.

Rowls doesn't need to read something to know it's wrong.

[ClaretMoffitt]

Smashing capitalism one messageboard post at a time!

Love it!

Keep fighting the good fight comrades!

*sent from my iPhone

That last part got me

[Rowls]

Hi Rowls, I'm puzzled. How can you know what the blog said if you didn't read it? How can you know that "it's got its fundamental approach wrong?"

The blog's conclusion is that inequality of opportunity is a major negative for tackling poverty - and the best way to tackle inequality of opportunity is to ensure good quality education for those in poverty.

But I don;t know what it said other than what you've told me and quoted.

I know what kind of language it's using and I know it's basic conclusions.

Is "inequality of opportunity" a "major negative" for tackling poverty - it all depends how you define it but given that the factors needed for capitalism to flourish are well known and can be described in terms far less woolly than "inequality of opportunity" I'd be inclined to think this article is barking up the wrong tree.

[Paul Waine]

But I don;t know what it said other than what you've told me and quoted.

I know what kind of language it's using and I know it's basic conclusions.

Is "inequality of opportunity" a "major negative" for tackling poverty - it all depends how you define it but given that the factors needed for capitalism to flourish are well known and can be described in terms far less woolly than "inequality of opportunity" I'd be inclined to think this article is barking up the wrong tree.

No worries. I recommend you take a few minutes to read the blog. You might find it is not so far from your own views.

[Rowls]

It might be but I genuinely wouldn't want to read an article written in that kind of dead, official language for pleasure. I'd much rather read a newspaper or a journal

[Imploding Turtle]

No worries. I recommend you take a few minutes to read the blog. You might find it is not so far from your own views.

Oh if he thinks it'll agree with him he'll read it. But if he thinks he might be exposed to something that challenges his religion then of course, he'll give it a wide berth.

[Rowls]

Rowls' definition of confirmation bias: Something other people do.