Live data from Hacker News

A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

jasonhickel.org

241–250 of 254 posts

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#241
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument is both true and deceiving at the same time. The poorest countries are improving the most because they are so far behind everyone else that any improvement is spectacular when viewed as a percentage. Take a homeless person who has a penny to his name. You give him $100 and his wealth skyrockets by 1000000% in a day. Compare that to bill gates whose wealth probably increases by a "measly" 10% per year. B…

> The idea that the poorest countries ( like CAR ) is going to lead the world is unrealistic barring some apocalyptic event in the US, Europe, East Asia, Middle East. That's not at all what I said. What I meant was that Sweden (and every developed country) improved in one generation from where CAR is today to where Sweden is today. CAR is currently improving faster than Sweden ever did, so it's probably that in one g…

> CAR is currently improving faster than Sweden ever did, so it's probably that in one generation CAR will be where Sweden is today.

Yeah... that's not how it works.

Yesterday you had zero wifes. Today, on your wedding you have 1. Thus, just plotting the trend, tomorrow you have 2. You'll soon have dozens.

https://xkcd.com/605

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was effectively a uprising, a revolutionary coup and a dictatorship in Argentina during that time, causing enormous political turmoil. And your blaming this in the 'World Bank' and 'Capitalists'? No. Neoliberals had little to do with it. My comment stands: Pinker is not a neoliberal, and he's not even supporting neoliberalism. Frankly neither is Bill Gates. A 'neoliberal' would not support things like socialize…

During the same period, we have put presidents in jail immediately after the end of their term, others have fled with billions, another has committed suicide, and it's open knowledge that corruption is rampant and a handful of conglomerates own the country. Our very last president was impeached and thrown directly in jail due to a popular uprising. We had dictator presidents for decades. Park Chung Hee, widely credit…

"Thrown to jail", that's a big difference with Argentina. But more important, budget deficit was most of the time less than 2%.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your essay is written as though more than one person wrote it because its so self contradictory. Capitalism and Public programs are in conflict because underlying public efforts is progressive taxation (aka Redistribution). Labour protections (which again is anti capitalist) are pretty key for the creation of the middle class in western countries. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkPQbJ4jRhE

It only appears self-contradictory because we're told day in and day out that labour protections are anti-capitalist. They're not. If you think about it, labour protections are pro-capitalist because they agree the current model works and just want to make the wealth flow fairly to everybody rather than to those who initially control the capital. Labour protections would be about dismantling capitalism if they were a…

Okay I understand the issue. You think that Capitalism is the economic order of the 1940s-80s.

Capitalism is a system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law. A Union violates the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. (Restricts who and at what price can be employed) Taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. ("taxation is theft" etc)

Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort. If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside) This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private.

"As taxation has become less progressive over the years inequality has skyrocketed and investment in infrastructure has tanked which actually works against the interests of the capitalists. So, properly speaking capitalism and progressive taxation make great bedfellows"

I dont mind arguments where one states that capitalism can be so self destructive that constraining its natural tendencies leads to higher economic output. BUT dont then confused this new tamed object with the original savage beast. It is a category error when you give someone a wolf for a pet when they asked for a dog. If you hear "dog" when someone else actually says and means "wolf" you will aid in a great deal of suffering.

I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#244
post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that the poorest countries ( like CAR ) is going to lead the world is unrealistic barring some apocalyptic event in the US, Europe, East Asia, Middle East. That's not at all what I said. What I meant was that Sweden (and every developed country) improved in one generation from where CAR is today to where Sweden is today. CAR is currently improving faster than Sweden ever did, so it's probably that in one g…

> CAR is currently improving faster than Sweden ever did, so it's probably that in one generation CAR will be where Sweden is today. Yeah... that's not how it works. Yesterday you had zero wifes. Today, on your wedding you have 1. Thus, just plotting the trend, tomorrow you have 2. You'll soon have dozens. https://xkcd.com/605

> Yeah... that's not how it works.

But Sweden, and every other developed country on the planet did it, so why do you assume that other countries can't or won't.

They're currently doing a faster job of improving than any other country ever did... yes, even the one YOU live in.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've contradicted yourself in your own statement. You can't have 'not enough investment' and then 'debt trap' (i.e. taking on too much debt) at the same time. Which is it? They can't access debt? Or they're taking on too much, so much they can't service it? Countries usually wantonly and willingly approach the IMF/WB for loans - not the other way around. The reason is because they can get better terms than anyone e…

IMF debt trap for developing countries during the is well documented. Till the 90s, there were very high interest rates. So yes, they could access debt, but it was impossible to repay. The nature of the lending has become less exploitative in recent years but not necessarily long enough for these places to recover. Sure, there are cases where corrupt leaders have embezzled the funds. However, it was also a practice t…

FWIW, after almost three years on the ground in Africa through 32 countries, I agree with you 100%.

The debt trap the IMF is holding these countries in is shocking and horrid.

Part of me wishes "Africa" would band together, give the IMF the middle finger and do their own thing / team up even more with the Chinese. At least then they'd have a fair start, rather than the IMF putting a foot on their heads.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"in a world that’s as fabulously rich as ours, obscene" ??? Wealth is mostly a function of intelligent social organization. Why are we so much more vastly wealthy than we were 100 years go? Just because we pump more gas? No - we're smarter. Wealth is what a country generates , not what it has . It's not like a 'pile of gold' that we have that magically turns into iPhones. Most places that have extreme poverty are rif…

Swedes have lots of real natural resources. Check your facts.

My facts are correct.

Natural Resources comprise of less than 1% of Sweden's GDP.

Here is a map [1] where you can see the % GDP comprising of Natural Resources by nation.

Notice that the wealthiest nations tend to derive almost no value from the export of natural resources. They are creating value added products and services, which is what intelligently organized people do.

[1] https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/NY.GDP.TOTL.RT.Z...

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only appears self-contradictory because we're told day in and day out that labour protections are anti-capitalist. They're not. If you think about it, labour protections are pro-capitalist because they agree the current model works and just want to make the wealth flow fairly to everybody rather than to those who initially control the capital. Labour protections would be about dismantling capitalism if they were a…

Okay I understand the issue. You think that Capitalism is the economic order of the 1940s-80s. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law. A Union violates the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. (Restricts who and at what price can be employed) Taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. ("taxation is theft" etc) Why are all Public Efforts a…

> I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty

I have a copy of it, understand the central thesis (r>g), agree with conclusion of the central thesis (inequality increases), and agree with the proposed counter-measures (progressive tax regimes, Tobin tax, …)

I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. So r>g leads to capitalism's excesses: I agree that capitalism in and of itself is merely the system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law …

I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue).

I strongly strongly disagree that taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. Again, I'd go further, anyone who makes a claim like that is either an apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" (in short, an ideologue).

> Why are all Public Efforts a form of redistribution? Cause if they were not then they would simply be a corporate effort.

Ever wondered why city and county councils are sometimes called corporations or are said to be incorporated? I may be going out on a limb here but I doubt you did. There's no God-given rule that every single part of society must be privately run. No sane person actually believes that. Police? Emergency services? Army? (To name the obvious ones). What, wars outsourced to unaccountable mercenaries? Policing crime outsourced to the lowest bidder? Guess what, we used to have voluntary and competing fire services and they used to start fires to create work for themselves! Eventually people copped on and decided that they should be publicly funded.

> If you are just trading value for value there is no need for government. (Game theory aside)

Vacuous. Literally devoid of sense.

> This is why in highly capitalist countries like the USA the medical system remains private.

With how many uninsured. Roughly 30 million, isn't it? And how many needless deaths a year. I think the number is around 40,000? You're basically saying that you're okay with the status quo, a status quo which results in needless death. Luckily people with the extreme views that you have are outliers. Over 70% over people in the USA want Medicare for All. It's coming. It's happening and there's nothing people with the views you have can do about it. Here is Life Expectancy measured against Health Expenditure compared in the developed world: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Life_exp... That's the reality you're living in and want to continue to live in.

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay I understand the issue. You think that Capitalism is the economic order of the 1940s-80s. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, voluntary transactions, and contract law. A Union violates the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions. (Restricts who and at what price can be employed) Taxation violates the tenet of private ownership. ("taxation is theft" etc) Why are all Public Efforts a…

> I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty I have a copy of it, understand the central thesis (r>g), agree with conclusion of the central thesis (inequality increases), and agree with the proposed counter-measures (progressive tax regimes, Tobin tax, …) I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. So r>g leads to capitalism's excesses: I agree that…

First Im Canadian and I like Canada. My personal views are reflected best by someone like Noam Chomsky. So obviously im non of these apply "apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" "

However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions" Perhaps your thinking of unions that dont have scab laws backing them?

I think worse still is this concept "I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. "

Greed is an individual choice and it has very little to do with the structure of capitalism. I think Marx even points to the lack of choice that the capitalist has in their pursuit of profit and the inevitable resulting exploitation. Charity in capitalism is like vegetarianism in Lions.

related is a doc on negative liberty: https://thoughtmaybe.com/the-trap/

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I would also recommend reading something like "Capital" - by Thomas Piketty I have a copy of it, understand the central thesis (r>g), agree with conclusion of the central thesis (inequality increases), and agree with the proposed counter-measures (progressive tax regimes, Tobin tax, …) I don't believe that Capitalism creates r>g. I believe human greed creates r>g. So r>g leads to capitalism's excesses: I agree that…

First Im Canadian and I like Canada. My personal views are reflected best by someone like Noam Chomsky. So obviously im non of these apply "apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" " However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions" Perhaps your thi…

I'm Irish and I like Canada.

> First Im Canadian and I like Canada.

You can't extol the virtues of the US healthcare system and then say you like Canada. That's contradictory. You can't say that you "like" Canada (a social democracy) but also say you admire the US healthcare system (non socialised healthcare). Make up your mind.

> However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate […]

No. That's not defining something, that's stating a belief. Your have opposing beliefs. Neither of us is wrong by definition. When you think about it, that's not how belief and ideology works. My point is though that the overwhelming majority of Canadians and Americans agree with my position even if that position is not reflected 100% of the time in the social policy of the day. We could be all wrong, but hey, you got to either convince us all (and you're not doing a good job of it) or hope that the powers that be prevail. And history tells us they won't

I know about negative and positive liberty, I studied philosophy.

I've also read Chomsky. He's a frickin' anarcho-syndicalist, he's on record as being an anarcho-syndicalist. A syndicalist is someone who believes in unions! How can you say your views are reflected best by someone like Chomsky and in the next breath decry unions.

Everyone is self-interested. That's as close to a law of human nature as any that you can get. Randian capitalism relies on the fact that people ought to only look out for themselves, and invariably do. Capitalism is a _system_, humans _animate it.

It's been great debating you, but please read over what I've written a couple of times before you reply to me. That might sound really condescending, but I don't mean it to be, I swear. I think we actually see eye-to-eye on a lot of things …

Re: A letter to Steven Pinker about global poverty

#250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First Im Canadian and I like Canada. My personal views are reflected best by someone like Noam Chomsky. So obviously im non of these apply "apologist for the rich, or has no empathy for the working class, or is a doctrinaire "free-marketeer" " However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions violate the ability of the capitalist to engage in voluntary transactions" Perhaps your thi…

I'm Irish and I like Canada. > First Im Canadian and I like Canada. You can't extol the virtues of the US healthcare system and then say you like Canada. That's contradictory. You can't say that you "like" Canada (a social democracy) but also say you admire the US healthcare system (non socialised healthcare). Make up your mind. > However this is almost wrong by definition "I strongly strongly disagree that unions vi…

Im totally a fan of unions and Canadian health care. Never once did I say the USA health care system was what I favor. Nor did I decry unions. For a phd student your reading comprehension is quite poor.

I am simply describing what the Capitalism means because you say Capitalism but really you mean like a super mixed economy.

Its sorta like the Communism. If a communist country decides to have markets and private property to create incentives then it really cant be said to be communist anymore. Private property is antithetical to Communism just as redistribution is antithetical to Capitalism.

Post reply on HN