It's the "when".
The assumption is that market-oriented economies generate prosperity almost automatically, and moreover that they generalise this prosperity automatically. That this prosperity was for the taking, at any moment, had the government simply implemented this or that package of reforms. But it's hardly self-evident that this is the case- or that, given the massive stake that the Chinese state maintains in many major firms, that these reforms have actually ever been implemented, at least in any fashion that would be recommended by mainstream Western economists.
It's not controversial that the market-oriented reforms in China and India (and also Vietnam, and many others), generated enormous prosperity and basically rescued these countries from the misery in which they were stuck. It's not controversial that countries with a closed, socialistic economy stand to benefit tremendously from liberalization.
What is more controversial, and has little to do with the above examples, is how much countries that already have market economies would benefit from further liberalization. Conflating these two is not very useful. Getting rid of Maoism and making China capitalistic cannot be compared to whatever tax and spending cutting proposals liberals might have for France or Germany.
The entire thing. It’s rather nonsensical, frankly, and more simplistic and ignorant of things like context, history, and political theory than a cereal ad.
And in the face of this superb argument I should embrace communism?
Says who?
This is only wrong because that first part was wrong. Anyway, you’re still just straight up ignoring everyone telling you that you have a really silly and inconsistent definition of poverty.
It's neither my definition nor inconsistent. It's the World Banks definition of extreme poverty. But anyway you cut it, poverty fell dramatically in China since it became capitalistic and in India since it liberalized its economy. Define it anyway you want. People making more than $2 per day, $5 per day, $100 per day. The numbers increased dramatically in these two counties in the last decades.
Have you ever even seen a history book? Do you think things just sprung up from nowhere, just spawning into existence? There is SO much delicate historical context you’re ignoring here.
Have YOU ever read a history book, or you're just enamored to your high school history teacher? What's more, have you ever read an economics book? Have you ever read anything about the reforms Deng Xiaoping implemented and their impact? Have you ever read anything about the economic history of India post independence? I'm guessing not.
Do you just get to pick what is and isn’t socialism? Venezuela is about as socialist as Denmark, probably less so, and it’s almost laughable to blame its economic collapse on more socialism.
Ha, as we say in Brazil, an ugly baby has no parents. When there was still oil money to burn, socialists hailed Venezuela as the greatest thing of all times. From Chomsky to jacobin mag clowns, every far leftist in the world made pilgrimage to Caracas to kiss the butt of the red caudillo. Now that its bankrupt, as all socialist countries become, it's no longer socialist. Ha.
No, it has nothing to do with Denmark. Which BTW is a highly capitalist, free market economy. They just have high taxes and generous welfare schemes.
You clearly missed where "we" defined poverty as $2 a day. See when you define poverty that way, its alot easier to assert that worldwide poverty is being overcome... now if you define it as below something more like a living wage... I'd guess that there's be much less (if any) progress over the past 30-40 years. The part that sets the cutoff line for "poverty" at $2 a year.
Oh wait... its not even $2!
Its $1.90... Why specifically $1.90 and not $2? I'd wager its because that is the absolute maximum you can set the "poverty" line and still be able to get those results that show a steady decline in global poverty. My guess is that if you raised it even to a full $2... those gains would disappear... which lets you know how much of a farce the claim that poverty has decreased is.
Define poverty as any making below any income you want. It dramatically fell in both China and India since they dumped socialism.
