Home        About Dan        News        Books        Forum        Art
 
   
Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »
Topic Options
#169036 - 05/07/19 07:36 AM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: jmill]
Silence Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 30
Loc: South Africa
 Originally Posted By: jmill

poverty rates are declining, even in socialist and communist countries (albeit at a much slower rate in those kinds of states)


Again, the world bank disagrees:

 Quote:
The world as a whole has made impressive strides on poverty reduction. Since 1990 in fact, nearly 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty, which means that the number of people living on 1 dollar and 90 cents per day, or less, has reduced dramatically.

From 2012 to 2013 alone, nearly 100 million people escaped extreme poverty. That’s a quarter of a million people per day; or 200 people per minute.

China and many of its neighbors in East Asia have largely driven the world’s progress. In China alone, nearly 800 million people have escaped poverty since the 1980s.

And while East Asia was home to around half of the world’s extreme poor in 1990, today just over 9 percent of the extreme poor live in the region.

But the challenge is far from over. According to our estimates, we know that nearly 800 million people in the world still live in extreme deprivation. 25 million of those people live in China.


https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech...-of-development

Top
#169037 - 05/07/19 02:18 PM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: Silence]
jmill Online   content
Full Shrike


Registered: 04/01/06
Posts: 5610
 Originally Posted By: Silence
 Originally Posted By: jmill

poverty rates are declining, even in socialist and communist countries (albeit at a much slower rate in those kinds of states)


Again, the world bank disagrees:

 Quote:
The world as a whole has made impressive strides on poverty reduction. Since 1990 in fact, nearly 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty, which means that the number of people living on 1 dollar and 90 cents per day, or less, has reduced dramatically.

From 2012 to 2013 alone, nearly 100 million people escaped extreme poverty. That’s a quarter of a million people per day; or 200 people per minute.

China and many of its neighbors in East Asia have largely driven the world’s progress. In China alone, nearly 800 million people have escaped poverty since the 1980s.

And while East Asia was home to around half of the world’s extreme poor in 1990, today just over 9 percent of the extreme poor live in the region.

But the challenge is far from over. According to our estimates, we know that nearly 800 million people in the world still live in extreme deprivation. 25 million of those people live in China.


https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech...-of-development


Did you not read Enright's statistics about declining poverty in China (communist and socialist) versus India (democratic republic and capitalist)? But the point isn't the speed with which poverty is declining in communist countries versus capitalist countries, it's that communist and socialist countries COULD NOT end their poverty issues without a thriving world economy to tap into, and that thriving world economy is courtesy of capitalism, not socialism. Anyone who thinks socialism is the answer to anything is either ignorant of history or purposely in favor of a failed economic system for their own obscure reasons.

Top
#169038 - 05/07/19 04:03 PM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: jmill]
Lasombra Offline
Terror


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 6914
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
No one at the world bank, or anywhere else outside of dogmatically ideological Marxist-Leninist-Maoist circles, would attribute China’s economic success to anything other than what has been essentially the embrace of market capitalism. Deng Xiaoping dropped the inflexible and utterly immune to reality central planning that characterized the economic and humanitarian disasters of the Mao years, and replaced that system with state owned enterprises that, unlike their Soviet counterparts, focused on commercial success rather than meeting production quotas set by a government ministry. The CPC than cleared the way for the birth of an amazingly vigorous private sector. This bizarre public/private hybrid was just what was necessary to launch China into the global economy, and this arrangement was, and remains, uniquely suited to China’s demographic and political dynamic. Countries like Vietnam have had success with a similar roadmap, however such an arrangement would never have worked for the Soviets, or for African and South American communist regimes; outside of Asia, such reforms haven’t even been attempted. As unpopular as it is to claim these days, the system is not everything; markets are not insulated from the culture, language, and history of their participants. This is an important, if inconvenient, truth to point out when debating economic and social policy with someone who claims “it works in the Netherlands, why can’t we do it here?”.

China’s government is still arranged along communist lines. The military is an organ of the party, not the people, propaganda ministries have total control over all media outlets, even those that are part of the private sector, for that matter any part of that prosperous private sector could be seized overnight by the CPC if they wished, for any reason. This is one of many reasons why the idea of the RMB replacing the USD as global reserve currency is silly; there are no real legal, political, or cultural restrictions in place to prevent the CPC from doing whatever they want. Domestic capitalists and their international business partners are given access to a structure of labyrinthine arbitration laws and vaguely defined legal rights when dealing with the CPC, but the Party is the ultimate authority. Something to think about next time you want to invest in that hot new Chinese IPO.


Edited by Lasombra (05/07/19 04:24 PM)
_________________________
Where’s the omelette?—George Orwell

Top
#169039 - 05/07/19 05:09 PM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: Silence]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3523
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: Silence
 Originally Posted By: jmill

poverty rates are declining, even in socialist and communist countries (albeit at a much slower rate in those kinds of states)


Again, the world bank disagrees:

 Quote:
The world as a whole has made impressive strides on poverty reduction. Since 1990 in fact, nearly 1.1 billion people have moved out of extreme poverty, which means that the number of people living on 1 dollar and 90 cents per day, or less, has reduced dramatically.

From 2012 to 2013 alone, nearly 100 million people escaped extreme poverty. That’s a quarter of a million people per day; or 200 people per minute.

China and many of its neighbors in East Asia have largely driven the world’s progress. In China alone, nearly 800 million people have escaped poverty since the 1980s.

And while East Asia was home to around half of the world’s extreme poor in 1990, today just over 9 percent of the extreme poor live in the region.

But the challenge is far from over. According to our estimates, we know that nearly 800 million people in the world still live in extreme deprivation. 25 million of those people live in China.


https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/speech...-of-development


I think the question would be “What specifically happened in China during the last 40 years that brought millions of people out of poverty?” 40 years ago millions of people in China lived in extreme poverty in the countryside where there were no jobs to speak of, and over the course of the decades, hundreds of millions of people migrated to the cities for a better life. This had a huge stimulating effect on certain industries domestic to China, such as construction, and so on.

If you have anything on the ball at all, just by moving to a city you can likely escape a standard of living of $1.90 a day.

Later on in this continuing migration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the decline of Maoism, international companies looked at China and its labor force as a good place to set up shop. I doubt that they looked at the state-run companies and said, "Being state-run, these factories should be more efficient than the factories you usually get with corporations like Honda or whatever, so this is going to be fun."

International companies were allowed to manufacture their goods in China, but strong barriers were put in place to prohibit foreign companies in general from selling their goods in China. Now the migration from the countryside became a flood fueled by the increased demand for more workers to man the city factories.

As a condition for access to the cheap and efficient labor market of the country, China required many companies to share their proprietary product knowledge and manufacturing techniques with the Chinese companies. So there was a tremendous influx of sophisticated and diverse engineering knowledge from all over the world flooding into China. Also, China set up a highly efficient, international corporate spying operation to gain even more knowledge. And many Chinese companies played fast and loose with international copyright laws and other restrictions.

Psychologists say that the two traits most predictive for success in life are IQ and industriousness. IQ is more predictive for this than even being born into a rich family. The average IQ for a white American is arbitrarily set at 100. The average IQ in China on our American scale would be an equivalent score of something like 106 here. The Chinese and Japanese do better than any other group in this department but Askhenazi Jews, who I think score around 110 on average. Can you imagine how productive a nation of 1.3 billion Ashkenazi Jews might be if they were, on average, as industrious as the Chinese?

Some attribute this supposed industiousness trait of the Chinese to China’s rice culture. As I understand it, to do well in rice growing you have to work 7 days a week for about 340 days a year. You can’t be much of a slacker and succeed very well as a rice farmer in China.

In any event, we in the West normally associate cradle to the grave entitlements with “socialism,” but do the Chinese? As I understand it, there is little to no “safety net” for old people there. Thus you must work and save your money for retirement. This is one major reason why it is so difficult to develop more domestic demand in China. People are accustomed to saving their money rather than spending it. So there are customs and policies in effect there that tend to support the industriousness trait.

All of these factors that I have mentioned seem unique to China as a member of the “state capitalist” set, rather than traits necessarily common to the set of "all state capitalist countries.” So I don’t know what “state capitalist” lessons we can draw from China.

One thing I should mention is that China lags far behind the U.S. – about 40 years behind – in terms of GDP per person. It is projected that the U.S. GDP per person will be around $67,082 in 2020, whereas China’s will be $10,971. The U.S. GDP per person was $12,553 in 1980.
_________________________
Jim

Top
#169040 - 05/08/19 04:49 AM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: jmill]
Silence Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 30
Loc: South Africa
 Originally Posted By: jmill

Did you not read Enright's statistics about declining poverty in China (communist and socialist) versus India (democratic republic and capitalist)?


I didn't, but personally I'd rather trust researchers for example from Oxford University:

https://ourworldindata.org/the-global-decline-of-extreme-poverty-was-it-only-china

 Quote:
To see whether it was China alone that was responsible for this decline in extreme poverty, we recalculated the share of people living in extreme poverty and disregarded China entirely. This allows us to compare a planet with China to a planet without China. (At the end of the post it is explained how poverty for the non-Chinese world population was calculated.)

The chart below shows the results. In blue is the decline of global poverty, in red the decline of poverty excluding China.

We see that the reduction of global poverty was very substantial even when we do not take into account the poverty reduction in China. In 1981 almost one third (29%) of the non-Chinese world population was living in extreme poverty. By 2013 this share had fallen to 12%.

Top
#169041 - 05/08/19 04:51 AM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: Lasombra]
Silence Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 30
Loc: South Africa
 Originally Posted By: Lasombra
No one at the world bank, or anywhere else outside of dogmatically ideological Marxist-Leninist-Maoist circles, would attribute China’s economic success to anything other than what has been essentially the embrace of market capitalism. Deng Xiaoping dropped the inflexible and utterly immune to reality central planning that characterized the economic and humanitarian disasters of the Mao years, and replaced that system with state owned enterprises that, unlike their Soviet counterparts, focused on commercial success rather than meeting production quotas set by a government ministry. The CPC than cleared the way for the birth of an amazingly vigorous private sector. This bizarre public/private hybrid was just what was necessary to launch China into the global economy, and this arrangement was, and remains, uniquely suited to China’s demographic and political dynamic. Countries like Vietnam have had success with a similar roadmap, however such an arrangement would never have worked for the Soviets, or for African and South American communist regimes; outside of Asia, such reforms haven’t even been attempted. As unpopular as it is to claim these days, the system is not everything; markets are not insulated from the culture, language, and history of their participants. This is an important, if inconvenient, truth to point out when debating economic and social policy with someone who claims “it works in the Netherlands, why can’t we do it here?”.

China’s government is still arranged along communist lines. The military is an organ of the party, not the people, propaganda ministries have total control over all media outlets, even those that are part of the private sector, for that matter any part of that prosperous private sector could be seized overnight by the CPC if they wished, for any reason. This is one of many reasons why the idea of the RMB replacing the USD as global reserve currency is silly; there are no real legal, political, or cultural restrictions in place to prevent the CPC from doing whatever they want. Domestic capitalists and their international business partners are given access to a structure of labyrinthine arbitration laws and vaguely defined legal rights when dealing with the CPC, but the Party is the ultimate authority. Something to think about next time you want to invest in that hot new Chinese IPO.


So is China a communist or a capitalist country? If it's not purely capitalist, how can one explain that China outperforms purely capitalist countries? Is it evidence that pure capitalism is less efficient than whatever China is doing?

Top
#169042 - 05/08/19 06:21 AM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: Silence]
Lasombra Offline
Terror


Registered: 11/21/07
Posts: 6914
Loc: Phoenix, AZ
 Originally Posted By: Silence
 Originally Posted By: Lasombra
No one at the world bank, or anywhere else outside of dogmatically ideological Marxist-Leninist-Maoist circles, would attribute China’s economic success to anything other than what has been essentially the embrace of market capitalism. Deng Xiaoping dropped the inflexible and utterly immune to reality central planning that characterized the economic and humanitarian disasters of the Mao years, and replaced that system with state owned enterprises that, unlike their Soviet counterparts, focused on commercial success rather than meeting production quotas set by a government ministry. The CPC than cleared the way for the birth of an amazingly vigorous private sector. This bizarre public/private hybrid was just what was necessary to launch China into the global economy, and this arrangement was, and remains, uniquely suited to China’s demographic and political dynamic. Countries like Vietnam have had success with a similar roadmap, however such an arrangement would never have worked for the Soviets, or for African and South American communist regimes; outside of Asia, such reforms haven’t even been attempted. As unpopular as it is to claim these days, the system is not everything; markets are not insulated from the culture, language, and history of their participants. This is an important, if inconvenient, truth to point out when debating economic and social policy with someone who claims “it works in the Netherlands, why can’t we do it here?”.

China’s government is still arranged along communist lines. The military is an organ of the party, not the people, propaganda ministries have total control over all media outlets, even those that are part of the private sector, for that matter any part of that prosperous private sector could be seized overnight by the CPC if they wished, for any reason. This is one of many reasons why the idea of the RMB replacing the USD as global reserve currency is silly; there are no real legal, political, or cultural restrictions in place to prevent the CPC from doing whatever they want. Domestic capitalists and their international business partners are given access to a structure of labyrinthine arbitration laws and vaguely defined legal rights when dealing with the CPC, but the Party is the ultimate authority. Something to think about next time you want to invest in that hot new Chinese IPO.


So is China a communist or a capitalist country? If it's not purely capitalist, how can one explain that China outperforms purely capitalist countries? Is it evidence that pure capitalism is less efficient than whatever China is doing?


Is China communist or capitalist? Has a dog the Buddha-nature?



Edited by Lasombra (05/08/19 06:26 AM)
_________________________
Where’s the omelette?—George Orwell

Top
#169043 - 05/08/19 07:28 AM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: Lasombra]
Silence Offline
enthusiast


Registered: 04/28/19
Posts: 30
Loc: South Africa
What about my second and third questions, though?
Top
#169044 - 05/08/19 11:41 AM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: Silence]
Enright Offline
Super User


Registered: 05/17/06
Posts: 3523
Loc: CA
 Originally Posted By: Silence
 Originally Posted By: Lasombra
No one at the world bank, or anywhere else outside of dogmatically ideological Marxist-Leninist-Maoist circles, would attribute China’s economic success to anything other than what has been essentially the embrace of market capitalism. Deng Xiaoping dropped the inflexible and utterly immune to reality central planning that characterized the economic and humanitarian disasters of the Mao years, and replaced that system with state owned enterprises that, unlike their Soviet counterparts, focused on commercial success rather than meeting production quotas set by a government ministry. The CPC than cleared the way for the birth of an amazingly vigorous private sector. This bizarre public/private hybrid was just what was necessary to launch China into the global economy, and this arrangement was, and remains, uniquely suited to China’s demographic and political dynamic. Countries like Vietnam have had success with a similar roadmap, however such an arrangement would never have worked for the Soviets, or for African and South American communist regimes; outside of Asia, such reforms haven’t even been attempted. As unpopular as it is to claim these days, the system is not everything; markets are not insulated from the culture, language, and history of their participants. This is an important, if inconvenient, truth to point out when debating economic and social policy with someone who claims “it works in the Netherlands, why can’t we do it here?”.

China’s government is still arranged along communist lines. The military is an organ of the party, not the people, propaganda ministries have total control over all media outlets, even those that are part of the private sector, for that matter any part of that prosperous private sector could be seized overnight by the CPC if they wished, for any reason. This is one of many reasons why the idea of the RMB replacing the USD as global reserve currency is silly; there are no real legal, political, or cultural restrictions in place to prevent the CPC from doing whatever they want. Domestic capitalists and their international business partners are given access to a structure of labyrinthine arbitration laws and vaguely defined legal rights when dealing with the CPC, but the Party is the ultimate authority. Something to think about next time you want to invest in that hot new Chinese IPO.


So is China a communist or a capitalist country? If it's not purely capitalist, how can one explain that China outperforms purely capitalist countries? Is it evidence that pure capitalism is less efficient than whatever China is doing?


I already explained certain factors in China's performance in reducing poverty (which is what you were talking about) that are unrelated to "state capitalism" per se, so what's the problem?:

"I think the question would be “What specifically happened in China during the last 40 years that brought millions of people out of poverty?” 40 years ago millions of people in China lived in extreme poverty in the countryside where there were no jobs to speak of, and over the course of the decades, hundreds of millions of people migrated to the cities for a better life. This had a huge stimulating effect on certain industries domestic to China, such as construction, and so on.

"If you have anything on the ball at all, just by moving to a city you can likely escape a poverty standard of living of $1.90 a day.

"Later on in this continuing migration, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the decline of Maoism, international companies looked at China and its labor force as a good place to set up shop. I doubt that they looked at the state-run companies and said, "Being state-run, these factories should be more efficient than the factories you usually get with corporations like Honda or whatever, so this is going to be fun."

"International companies were allowed to manufacture their goods in China, but strong barriers were put in place to prohibit foreign companies in general from selling their goods in China. Now the migration from the countryside became a flood fueled by the increased demand for more workers to man the city factories.

"As a condition for access to the cheap and efficient labor market of the country, China required many companies to share their proprietary product knowledge and manufacturing techniques with the Chinese companies. So there was a tremendous influx of sophisticated and diverse engineering knowledge from all over the world flooding into China. Also, China set up a highly efficient, international corporate spying operation to gain even more knowledge. And many Chinese companies played fast and loose with international copyright laws and other restrictions.

"Psychologists say that the two traits most predictive for success in life are IQ and industriousness. IQ is more predictive for this than even being born into a rich family. The average IQ for a white American is arbitrarily set at 100. The average IQ in China on our American scale would be an equivalent score of something like 106 here. The Chinese and Japanese do better than any other group in this department but Askhenazi Jews, who I think score around 110 on average. Can you imagine how productive a nation of 1.3 billion Ashkenazi Jews might be if they were, on average, as industrious as the Chinese?

"Some attribute this supposed industriousness trait of the Chinese to China’s rice culture. As I understand it, to do well in rice growing you have to work 7 days a week for about 340 days a year. You can’t be much of a slacker and succeed very well as a rice farmer in China.

"In any event, we in the West normally associate cradle to the grave entitlements with “socialism,” but do the Chinese? As I understand it, there is little to no “safety net” for old people there. Thus you must work and save your money for retirement. This is one major reason why it is so difficult to develop more domestic demand in China. People are accustomed to saving their money rather than spending it. So there are customs and policies in effect there that tend to support the industriousness trait.

"All of these factors that I have mentioned seem unique to China as a member of the “state capitalist” set, rather than traits necessarily common to the set of "all state capitalist countries.” So I don’t know what “state capitalist” lessons we can draw from China.

"One thing I should mention is that China lags far behind the U.S. – about 40 years behind – in terms of GDP per person. It is projected that the U.S. GDP per person will be around $67,082 in 2020, whereas China’s will be $10,971. The U.S. GDP per person was $12,553 in 1980."
_________________________
Jim

Top
#169045 - 05/08/19 01:23 PM Re: THESE are the most telling failures of socialism [Re: Enright]
steele,rick Offline
Super User


Registered: 07/30/11
Posts: 2608
Loc: Sarasota, Florida
"Some attribute this supposed industriousness trait of the Chinese to China’s rice culture. As I understand it, to do well in rice growing you have to work 7 days a week for about 340 days a year. You can’t be much of a slacker and succeed very well as a rice farmer in China."

I know an environmental engineer who had connections to China. The government hired his company back in the early 2000 to help with a massive industrial spill in western China. A copper smelter was built out in the vast un-populated lands of China. Thousands and thousands of workers were brought in to run the smelter. They built their own little village near the smelter. Some of the workers wanted to grow their own rice. But the site was so far from everything, and out in the desert, so not much water available. The rice workers noticed that the smelter plant had some large water ponds next to the plant. So they went over there and cut open the pond dikes and let the water flow into their rice fields. The rice grew and absorbed the toxins that were in the industrial waste water from the plant. Many of the workers got sick. The government had to go in and cleanup the rice fields. I don't know if the plant is still making copper, but that's how they do things in China.
_________________________
In questions of science, the authority of 1000 is not worth the humble reasoning of 1 man. Galileo

Top
Page 3 of 6 <12345>Last »


Hop to:

Generated in 0.027 seconds in which 0.006 seconds were spent on a total of 13 queries. Zlib compression disabled.

Home    Books    Curtis on Publishing   Previews    Bio    Bibliography    Snapshots     Foreign News    Reader's Forum    Art