What the left gets wrong about economics that annoys the shit out of me

[Solmyr]

I don't think "you are not as poor as a dirt-farming peasant in the Middle Ages" is a useful metric. Sure, everyone has become mathematically less poor in the last couple of centuries. On the other hand, current poverty, as in "you have to decide whether to eat or pay rent this month, and you cannot get sick", is also a result of free market capitalism.

Except that is simply not true.

Free market capitalism has resulted in the eradication (or at worst the radical reduction) in the number of people globally who have to decide whether to pay rent or eat - that kind of abject poverty you are talking about is a tiny fraction of what it used to be - the metric is not "are you a dirt faming peasant". The metric is the UN sponsored definitions around extreme poverty has shown that the percentage of the world population living in that state has declined from about 50% in 1950 to about 10 percent today.

That is the exact same time that world productivity has sky rocketed, and the one is BECAUSE of the other. Income distribution since 1975 has dramatically shifted such that the majority of people no longer live under the poverty line defined in real, adjusted dollars. Worldwide per capita GDP has gone from something like $2000/year in 1950 to over $11,000 per year in constant dollars.

You are simply wrong.

Worldwide per capita GDP is a useless measure when you have a world with people standing in line for free leftover food and Jeff Bezos buying a yacht for his yacht. That GDP is not distributed fairly in any way.

It is certainly relevant unless you are arguing that the unfairness (and that is a useless term anyway) is so bad that in fact ALL of the 6X increase in GDP was consumed by the non-poor. However, this is not the case.

Again, there is data on this.

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$mountain$encoding$frame$value=1878;;;;;&chart-type=mountain&url=v1

This has an amazing visiualization of how the income distribution has shifted over time.

You are, again, simply wrong.

In 1870 86% of the world population lived in extreme poverty.
By 1950 it was 57%
In 1975 it was 50%
In 2000 it was 20 %
And in 2018 it is just over 10%

Since 1950 world average GDP has gone up 6X.

There are problems with inequality to be sure, but the incredible explosion of productivity we have seen in the last 50 years has lifted most of the poorest people in the world out of abject poverty. Maybe it should have lifted more, and maybe it should have lifted them further. Those are good and important arguments to be made.

But the argument that this has not happened, and in fact that free market capitalism has somehow worked against the eradication of poverty is simply not true.

But is there actual proof of your claim that the explosion of productivity you cite is caused by free market capitalism? I mean, places like China have also had their productivity explode while not having a free market.

[Berkut]

When employers don't want to pay a minimum wage a person can live on, that's totally capitalism causing that.

No one is working 40 hours a week and starving.  The discussion has moved on.  Now we're talking about supporting a family on 40 hours a week.

The idea is "living wage" which means more than just not starving to death. Plenty of people who work full time are on federal benefits or homeless. I find that rather annoying.

Again, a very good argument to be had.

However, the fact that you need to start from is that free market capitalism has meant we are arguing about whether the least wealthy should have it even better, not whether or not they should have enough to eat or an education.

I am just baffled at this attitude. Liberalism at the macro scale works, and works really really fucking well! We have brought literally billions of people out of abject poverty. Educated billions. Given them more freedom, more lifespan, more health.

I mean....this is GOOD news, right?

Liberal capitalism has managed to increase the total output of human production something like 10X over the last 100 years, and that means we have the resources to nearly eradicate abject poverty in the world. We aren't done, and there is more to be done, but the way to drive those numbers even lower is to do what has already worked, and that means we have to recognize

A) That the reality is that the human condition for billions has radically improved, and
B) That the engine of that improvement is not just liberal ideals around equality of opportunity and political representation, and the other "soft" ideas of liberalism, but the "hard" reality of actual dollars and production and producing a lot more stuff so that a lot more stuff can be shared with the least fortunate.

[crazy canuck]

The idea is "living wage" which means more than just not starving to death. Plenty of people who work full time are on federal benefits or homeless. I find that rather annoying.

I'm familiar with this euphemism.  I was responding to Solymr who used different language.

He said to live on.  You simply didn't understand his post.

[Berkut]

I don't think "you are not as poor as a dirt-farming peasant in the Middle Ages" is a useful metric. Sure, everyone has become mathematically less poor in the last couple of centuries. On the other hand, current poverty, as in "you have to decide whether to eat or pay rent this month, and you cannot get sick", is also a result of free market capitalism.

Except that is simply not true.

Free market capitalism has resulted in the eradication (or at worst the radical reduction) in the number of people globally who have to decide whether to pay rent or eat - that kind of abject poverty you are talking about is a tiny fraction of what it used to be - the metric is not "are you a dirt faming peasant". The metric is the UN sponsored definitions around extreme poverty has shown that the percentage of the world population living in that state has declined from about 50% in 1950 to about 10 percent today.

That is the exact same time that world productivity has sky rocketed, and the one is BECAUSE of the other. Income distribution since 1975 has dramatically shifted such that the majority of people no longer live under the poverty line defined in real, adjusted dollars. Worldwide per capita GDP has gone from something like $2000/year in 1950 to over $11,000 per year in constant dollars.

You are simply wrong.

Worldwide per capita GDP is a useless measure when you have a world with people standing in line for free leftover food and Jeff Bezos buying a yacht for his yacht. That GDP is not distributed fairly in any way.

It is certainly relevant unless you are arguing that the unfairness (and that is a useless term anyway) is so bad that in fact ALL of the 6X increase in GDP was consumed by the non-poor. However, this is not the case.

Again, there is data on this.

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$mountain$encoding$frame$value=1878;;;;;&chart-type=mountain&url=v1

This has an amazing visiualization of how the income distribution has shifted over time.

You are, again, simply wrong.

In 1870 86% of the world population lived in extreme poverty.
By 1950 it was 57%
In 1975 it was 50%
In 2000 it was 20 %
And in 2018 it is just over 10%

Since 1950 world average GDP has gone up 6X.

There are problems with inequality to be sure, but the incredible explosion of productivity we have seen in the last 50 years has lifted most of the poorest people in the world out of abject poverty. Maybe it should have lifted more, and maybe it should have lifted them further. Those are good and important arguments to be made.

But the argument that this has not happened, and in fact that free market capitalism has somehow worked against the eradication of poverty is simply not true.

But is there actual proof of your claim that the explosion of productivity you cite is caused by free market capitalism? I mean, places like China have also had their productivity explode while not having a free market.

China's productivty has exploded once they began to actually implement free market policies, in fact. Their productivity lagged the rest of the world until just recently (relatively). They are actually evidence for the opposite of what you are saying.

You are seriously going to argue that the massive explosion in human productive output in the last century is caused by something other then free market capitalism? What might that be?

I mean, we have pretty obvious data points to compare - the USSR was kind enough to run the counter experiment for some 40 years or so, and China as well...

[Berkut]

I really, really honestly ask everyone involved here to go look at this:

https://www.gapminder.org/tools/#$model$markers$mountain$encoding$frame$value=1800;;;;;&chart-type=mountain&url=v1

It really is fascinating to start that graph back around 1800 and watch it through today.

The world didn't just produce a lot more shit, we also shared a lot more of that shit. It is not, as some would claim, just a lot more stuff being produced and consumed by the wealthiest.

There is plenty of inequality to be sure, but there is also an amazing success story being told.

[The Brain]

I mean....this is GOOD news, right?

To many people it is not.

[Valmy]

When employers don't want to pay a minimum wage a person can live on, that's totally capitalism causing that.

No one is working 40 hours a week and starving.  The discussion has moved on.  Now we're talking about supporting a family on 40 hours a week.

The idea is "living wage" which means more than just not starving to death. Plenty of people who work full time are on federal benefits or homeless. I find that rather annoying.

Again, a very good argument to be had.

However, the fact that you need to start from is that free market capitalism has meant we are arguing about whether the least wealthy should have it even better, not whether or not they should have enough to eat or an education.

I am just baffled at this attitude. Liberalism at the macro scale works, and works really really fucking well! We have brought literally billions of people out of abject poverty. Educated billions. Given them more freedom, more lifespan, more health.

I mean....this is GOOD news, right?

Liberal capitalism has managed to increase the total output of human production something like 10X over the last 100 years, and that means we have the resources to nearly eradicate abject poverty in the world. We aren't done, and there is more to be done, but the way to drive those numbers even lower is to do what has already worked, and that means we have to recognize

A) That the reality is that the human condition for billions has radically improved, and
B) That the engine of that improvement is not just liberal ideals around equality of opportunity and political representation, and the other "soft" ideas of liberalism, but the "hard" reality of actual dollars and production and producing a lot more stuff so that a lot more stuff can be shared with the least fortunate.

Hey I am all in favor of free market capitalism as an economic system, regulated to benefit society by the ever virtuous protectors of the public good as us state bureaucrats are.

It is one of the reasons I like the idea of a UBI to subsidize wages and enable people to live on a full time job, or even survive without one. That strikes me as an efficient way, if expensive, to deal with the problems of low wages without creating big market distortions. But it is a problem.

[Zoupa]

Feels like Berkypoo is having an argument with himself. Nobody is arguing to collectivize the means of production. Progressives are just asking for a fair(er) piece of the pie for everybody.

Why don't you head down to the nearest food bank with your charts and yell at those people that they should be thankful they're not starving.

[Solmyr]

China's productivty has exploded once they began to actually implement free market policies, in fact. Their productivity lagged the rest of the world until just recently (relatively). They are actually evidence for the opposite of what you are saying.

You are seriously going to argue that the massive explosion in human productive output in the last century is caused by something other then free market capitalism? What might that be?

Technological advancement, maybe? Now, you might argue that that's caused by free market capitalism, and sure, that may be partly so, but I wouldn't put all this advancement and increase in productivity as solely caused by capitalism. I would say that social development, in particular towards freer society, is a bigger cause. After all, Russia moved towards free market, insanely uncontrolled capitalism in the 1990s, yet that did not help their productivity explode. In the recent years, there are also increasingly many indicators that allowing capitalism to freely control the terms and conditions of work is not good for productivity - it has been found that shorter work hours increase productivity, for example.

[crazy canuck]

Feels like Berkypoo is having an argument with himself. Nobody is arguing to collectivize the means of production. Progressives are just asking for a fair(er) piece of the pie for everybody.

Why don't you head down to the nearest food bank with your charts and yell at those people that they should be thankful they're not starving.

I tried to engage but whatever he has in his mind about what it is progressives want and how that differs from what he says the solution is remains opaque to me.

Social Democracy works pretty well.  I am not not sure what his argument is.

[crazy canuck]

China's productivty has exploded once they began to actually implement free market policies, in fact. Their productivity lagged the rest of the world until just recently (relatively). They are actually evidence for the opposite of what you are saying.

You are seriously going to argue that the massive explosion in human productive output in the last century is caused by something other then free market capitalism? What might that be?

Technological advancement, maybe? Now, you might argue that that's caused by free market capitalism, and sure, that may be partly so, but I wouldn't put all this advancement and increase in productivity as solely caused by capitalism. I would say that social development, in particular towards freer society, is a bigger cause. After all, Russia moved towards free market, insanely uncontrolled capitalism in the 1990s, yet that did not help their productivity explode. In the recent years, there are also increasingly many indicators that allowing capitalism to freely control the terms and conditions of work is not good for productivity - it has been found that shorter work hours increase productivity, for example.

One would have to ignore the significant funding governments give to scientific endeavors to suggest that something called the free market is solely responsible for innovation. 

[Berkut]

China's productivty has exploded once they began to actually implement free market policies, in fact. Their productivity lagged the rest of the world until just recently (relatively). They are actually evidence for the opposite of what you are saying.

You are seriously going to argue that the massive explosion in human productive output in the last century is caused by something other then free market capitalism? What might that be?

Technological advancement, maybe? Now, you might argue that that's caused by free market capitalism, and sure, that may be partly so, but I wouldn't put all this advancement and increase in productivity as solely caused by capitalism. I would say that social development, in particular towards freer society, is a bigger cause. After all, Russia moved towards free market, insanely uncontrolled capitalism in the 1990s, yet that did not help their productivity explode. In the recent years, there are also increasingly many indicators that allowing capitalism to freely control the terms and conditions of work is not good for productivity - it has been found that shorter work hours increase productivity, for example.

No argument from me - I don't think the free market alone has done this by any means. It is the free market combined with liberal ideals, and a hell of a lot of technology.

But that free market is absolutely a necessary condition. I did not claim it was "solely" caused by capitalism. Why do you guys insist on adding in extra bullshit to argue against, instead of what I did say?

[Berkut]

China's productivty has exploded once they began to actually implement free market policies, in fact. Their productivity lagged the rest of the world until just recently (relatively). They are actually evidence for the opposite of what you are saying.

You are seriously going to argue that the massive explosion in human productive output in the last century is caused by something other then free market capitalism? What might that be?

Technological advancement, maybe? Now, you might argue that that's caused by free market capitalism, and sure, that may be partly so, but I wouldn't put all this advancement and increase in productivity as solely caused by capitalism. I would say that social development, in particular towards freer society, is a bigger cause. After all, Russia moved towards free market, insanely uncontrolled capitalism in the 1990s, yet that did not help their productivity explode. In the recent years, there are also increasingly many indicators that allowing capitalism to freely control the terms and conditions of work is not good for productivity - it has been found that shorter work hours increase productivity, for example.

One would have to ignore the significant funding governments give to scientific endeavors to suggest that something called the free market is solely responsible for innovation. 

This is why it is such a waste of time to bother engaging with you. Nobody said anything about the free market being solely responsible - you just make shit up, constantly. It is just dishonest.

[DGuller]

After all, Russia moved towards free market, insanely uncontrolled capitalism in the 1990s, yet that did not help their productivity explode.

Huh?  I don't think any reasonable person is going to argue that Russian transition to capitalism was an example for others to copy, but seriously?  You're going to argue that Russian transition to capitalism did not lead to incredible gains in productivity?  Obviously there was a painful transition from communism for a while, not helped by incredible corruption and gangsterism, but it's really not that hard to improve dramatically from this:

[Berkut]

Feels like Berkypoo is having an argument with himself. Nobody is arguing to collectivize the means of production. Progressives are just asking for a fair(er) piece of the pie for everybody.

Uhh, I am a progressive.

And plenty of people argue against free markets and capitalism. Not all progressives by any means - but look at the rhetoric out of Robert Reich and the continual cries about the evils of capitalism in general.

"Progressives" are a large group. Broadly speaking, they do in fact just ask for a fairer piece of the pie. Obviously I consider myselves one of them, and am not talking about all progressives. Is that not obvious?

Why don't you head down to the nearest food bank with your charts and yell at those people that they should be thankful they're not starving.

Why would I do that?