Republican capitalism in China reduced world poverty by 40% in 30 years!

[Osomir]

yes rural economic growth had to expand to feed all the millions who left for higher paying jobs in the cities. Its hard to argue that people left the rural areas in the 100's of millions for lower paying jobs in the cities, but is that what you seem to be arguing, but then you are the only person on earth attributing it all to seeds.

" how hard is to dig a hole, put a engineered seed in, and cover it"

I like how you simply keep ignoring any economic source that you disagree with while still not being able to provide any source of your own. So far all you've utilized is wikipedia yeah?

You're strawmen are cute too.

Anyway, if you're looking for an emotive reaction I'm not going to give you one. It's pretty obvious that you're simply trolling at this point. So overall: you were wrong. Deal with it.

 

[Osomir]

I disagree that China's case revolved around the capitalization of its urban industry and opening up of manufacturing sectors which did help its GDP but didn't have nearly as large an impact on poverty reduction. I was nitpicking.

1) hundreds of millions migrated to urban coastal areas for more pay not less

2) pay in manufacturing would be even higher still if not for liberal or anti capitalist currency manipulation

That's neat, but doesn't have much to do with China's poverty reduction statistics.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, can you explain how poverty declines if the total production of the country doesn't increase? I'm curious to understand how such a empirical occurs.

What makes you think that gains in agriculture can't increase total production? That seems an odd notion.

They do, but you said GDP gains don't reduce poverty. How can you reduce poverty without increase the incomes of the poor? If you increase their income, you increase GDP. The two things are inextricably linked.

Partly. It abolished it's system of collectivizedagriculture and adopted capitalism in the agricultural market. That's exactly how Western Europe accomplished the same thing.

I find it amusing that you would compare it to Western Europe after just calling Western Europe socialist. But yes, it was a liberalization of their agricultural markets.

Western Europe did it in the 16th through 18th Centuries when they abolished their Feudal economic system. That's when the enclosure movement took hold, common property was divided up and farmed individually and private property largely replace Feudal fiefdoms.

Then why are you denying that capitalism reduced poverty? Privatization is capitalism.

I do think that the liberalization of markets helps to promote economic growth (for the most part) I disagree that China's case revolved around the capitalization of its urban industry and opening up of manufacturing sectors which did help its GDP but didn't have nearly as large an impact on poverty reduction. I was nitpicking.

You're also misusing words. I said "capitalism," not "capitalization." You're technocrat terminology is meaningless in terms of economics. What I'm referring to is the institutions of private property and free exchange. The minutia of how a country goes about adopting these institutions isn't important, so long as it moves in that direction.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Again, can you explain how poverty declines if the total production of the country doesn't increase? I'm curious to understand how such a empirical occurs.

What makes you think that gains in agriculture can't increase total production? That seems an odd notion.

They do, but you said GDP gains don't reduce poverty. How can you reduce poverty without increase the incomes of the poor? If you increase their income, you increase GDP. The two things are inextricably linked.

By killing off the poor, obviously.

/semifacetiousness

 

[Osomir]

They do, but you said GDP gains don't reduce poverty.

I said that the two weren't the same thing. In other words all GDP growth doesn't reduce poverty. Take colonial Africa for example you had a wealthy exploitative class that increased regional wealth through resource exploitation, but that wealth didn't reduce poverty because it was accumulated by rich white men and local chiefs, not by those who were poor.

How can you reduce poverty without increase the incomes of the poor? If you increase their income, you increase GDP. The two things are inextricably linked.

Right, the problem is he wasn't approaching it that way he was approaching it the other way. aka "It's causing China's GDP to increase thus it must be reducing poverty" Which wasn't really the case in China even though it was increasing GDP. Poverty reduction in China revolved heavily around its rural agricultural sector, not its manufacturing sector. if you want poverty reduction associated with light manufacturing he'd be better served looking at Bangladesh.

You're also misusing words. I said "capitalism," not "capitalization." You're technocrat terminology is meaningless in terms of economics.

I wasn't referring to you, I was referring to Edward. Also terminology isn't meaningless at all in Economics. Terms are important because they have very specific definitions that we often get confused with everyday common vernacular. Take "poverty reduction" for example. That doesn't necessarily mean that the country gets richer, and it isn't referring to the GDP of a country going up, it is referring to the number of people who live on a certain amount of money as a total percentage of the population. Extreme poverty is generally around the $2 USD a day line. So poverty reduction is seeing the percentage of persons living in a society who live on less than $2 USD a day decrease. That is the economic definition of extreme poverty reduction. Theoretically you could have poverty reduction without a change in GDP at all. Say there is a country with a super rich minority and a large poor class. Holding GDP constant you could still see poverty reduction if income tendencies were changed, or if wealth were redistributed. So while GDP generally does increase with poverty reduction the two aren't cemented together.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm still waiting for EdB to explain exactly what is Republican Capitalism using various scenarios with economic and business cycles. I asked him last week, but he ignored the question. It seems Republican Capitalism is an invention of EdB's limited mind. I did Google search and never found the exact phrase used in a definition format. This did not shock me at all. EdB has been chastised by posters of all stripes, including some of our more educated conservative posters. This all goes to show EdB is and is a waste of time.

 

[PMZ]

I'm still waiting for EdB to explain exactly what is Republican Capitalism using various scenarios with economic and business cycles. I asked him last week, but he ignored the question. It seems Republican Capitalism is an invention of EdB's limited mind. I did Google search and never found the exact phrase used in a definition format. This did not shock me at all. EdB has been chastised by posters of all stripes, including some of our more educated conservative posters. This all goes to show EdB is and is a waste of time.

Because Republicans of today have had no real accomplishments, and many failures, over decades, they are left with abstractions as their only capital. Classic among them is "freedom". I suspect the "Republican capitalism" is a newer invention. I believe that it's meant as a counter to "socialism".

The economic systems of socialism and capitalism are practiced by every country in the world today, in different markets, depending on the ability or not to maintain competition.

What distinguishes the Democrat Party from the Republican Party today is simple. Accomplishment vs failure. Given that track record Republicans must invent abstractions to divert attention from the specifics of success and failure.

When they are able to focus on changing failure to accomplishment, relevance will return. As long as they can only talk abstractly about the motivation that they would like to assign to the opposition, success will continue to elude them.

 

[Sallow]

So why are our liberals and Obama trying to socialize our health care system as a starting point to socialize all of our industries? Its 100% backwards based on the evidence!!

I for one am glad you want to take credit for "Chinese style Capitalism" as the "Republican" version of it.

And I VERY MUCH agree with you.

 

[bripat9643]

I'm still waiting for EdB to explain exactly what is Republican Capitalism using various scenarios with economic and business cycles. I asked him last week, but he ignored the question. It seems Republican Capitalism is an invention of EdB's limited mind. I did Google search and never found the exact phrase used in a definition format. This did not shock me at all. EdB has been chastised by posters of all stripes, including some of our more educated conservative posters. This all goes to show EdB is and is a waste of time.

Because Republicans of today have had no real accomplishments, and many failures, over decades, they are left with abstractions as their only capital. Classic among them is "freedom". I suspect the "Republican capitalism" is a newer invention. I believe that it's meant as a counter to "socialism".

The liberal defines "accomplishment" as some vast new spending program.

The economic systems of socialism and capitalism are practiced by every country in the world today, in different markets, depending on the ability or not to maintain competition.

What distinguishes the Democrat Party from the Republican Party today is simple. Accomplishment vs failure. Given that track record Republicans must invent abstractions to divert attention from the specifics of success and failure.

Yes, Democrats have succeeded in spending vast mountains of money and flushing huge fortunes down the welfare sewere.

When they are able to focus on changing failure to accomplishment, relevance will return. As long as they can only talk abstractly about the motivation that they would like to assign to the opposition, success will continue to elude them.

Who talks "abstractly" about the liberal motivation? Since when is naked covetousness for other people's income and property "abstract?"

 

[PMZ]

I'm still waiting for EdB to explain exactly what is Republican Capitalism using various scenarios with economic and business cycles. I asked him last week, but he ignored the question. It seems Republican Capitalism is an invention of EdB's limited mind. I did Google search and never found the exact phrase used in a definition format. This did not shock me at all. EdB has been chastised by posters of all stripes, including some of our more educated conservative posters. This all goes to show EdB is and is a waste of time.

Because Republicans of today have had no real accomplishments, and many failures, over decades, they are left with abstractions as their only capital. Classic among them is "freedom". I suspect the "Republican capitalism" is a newer invention. I believe that it's meant as a counter to "socialism".

The liberal defines "accomplishment" as some vast new spending program.

The economic systems of socialism and capitalism are practiced by every country in the world today, in different markets, depending on the ability or not to maintain competition.

What distinguishes the Democrat Party from the Republican Party today is simple. Accomplishment vs failure. Given that track record Republicans must invent abstractions to divert attention from the specifics of success and failure.

Yes, Democrats have succeeded in spending vast mountains of money and flushing huge fortunes down the welfare sewere.

When they are able to focus on changing failure to accomplishment, relevance will return. As long as they can only talk abstractly about the motivation that they would like to assign to the opposition, success will continue to elude them.

Who talks "abstractly" about the liberal motivation? Since when is naked covetousness for other people's income and property "abstract?"

Clearly you are fully engaged with your Fox News channel, or Rush radio station, instead of the real world. Your choice, but don't pretend that it is informing you.

You and your brethren have cost the country success for decades by pursuing what you wish was true. Supply side economics. That making the wealthy, wealthier, accomplishes something more than that.

That idea is toxic to capitalism. One of the many people to prove that was Henry Ford when he implemented his one good idea, paying workers enough to afford the products that they built.

Pursuing supply side economics, as well as holy wars, Bush drove the country into the ground. A fact that Republicans try to obscure by the fact that he left town from the crash.

Using Keynesian economics, Democrats ended all of his disasters save one. Businesses failure to invest in productivity to maintain the standard of living that productive people enjoy. Instead, further pursuing the idea that richer rich was the answer, they rebuilt the third world with American jobs, and lavishly rewarded themselves with the money that used to be invested in productivity.

Now that the rich have enriched themselves at the expense of the middle class, they would like to sell the idea to idiots that what the country really needs are poorer poor. Our poor are too rich and our rich are too poor.

Really?

 

[bripat9643]

Because Republicans of today have had no real accomplishments, and many failures, over decades, they are left with abstractions as their only capital. Classic among them is "freedom". I suspect the "Republican capitalism" is a newer invention. I believe that it's meant as a counter to "socialism".

The liberal defines "accomplishment" as some vast new spending program.



Yes, Democrats have succeeded in spending vast mountains of money and flushing huge fortunes down the welfare sewere.

When they are able to focus on changing failure to accomplishment, relevance will return. As long as they can only talk abstractly about the motivation that they would like to assign to the opposition, success will continue to elude them.

Who talks "abstractly" about the liberal motivation? Since when is naked covetousness for other people's income and property "abstract?"

Clearly you are fully engaged with your Fox News channel, or Rush radio station, instead of the real world. Your choice, but don't pretend that it is informing you.

You and your brethren have cost the country success for decades by pursuing what you wish was true. Supply side economics. That making the wealthy, wealthier, accomplishes something more than that.

That idea is toxic to capitalism. One of the many people to prove that was Henry Ford when he implemented his one good idea, paying workers enough to afford the products that they built.

Pursuing supply side economics, as well as holy wars, Bush drove the country into the ground. A fact that Republicans try to obscure by the fact that he left town from the crash.

Using Keynesian economics, Democrats ended all of his disasters save one. Businesses failure to invest in productivity to maintain the standard of living that productive people enjoy. Instead, further pursuing the idea that richer rich was the answer, they rebuilt the third world with American jobs, and lavishly rewarded themselves with the money that used to be invested in productivity.

Now that the rich have enriched themselves at the expense of the middle class, they would like to sell the idea to idiots that what the country really needs are poorer poor. Our poor are too rich and our rich are too poor.

Really?

Democrats have done nothing since the days of Woodrow Wilson but engage in wholesale robbery and plunder. Sending money to Washington doesn't make anyone richer aside from useless ticks on the ass of society. Democrats have created all the economic and social problems this country has that are solvable.

Democrats are the scum of the Earth.

 

[CultureCitizen]

It's nonensense . Republican is a form of government :
A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" not the private concern of the rulers.

China can barely be called republic by the above definition.

And capitalism is an economic system. China like the rest of the world has a mixed economy system in which part of the economic activities are done by private enterprieses while others are done by the public sector.

The state still dominates in strategic "pillar" industries (such as energy and heavy industries), but private enterprise has expanded enormously, with around 30 million private businesses recorded in 2008

Notably education is a state run system in which primary and middle school education are free and compulsory.

... so much for the "Republican Captialism", whatever the neologism means.

 

[kiwiman127]

Here's what a so-called "Republican Capitalism" situation has reaped.
Notice in the first chart show flat to declining wages in Real Dollars (constant 1982 dollars). Now some will say, "well look at the Nominal Wages" (wages with inflation included)! Real Dollars are used by economist, the Labor Department and top financial publications because it measures real growth.
The second chart shows the working class's declining share of the Annual National Income, which has been declining since the beginning of the 1980s. Notice how it coincides with the end of wage growth for the working class? The third chart shows income growth gap since the 1980s, notice the lack of growth for 90% of income earners?

 

[PMZ]

The liberal defines "accomplishment" as some vast new spending program.



Yes, Democrats have succeeded in spending vast mountains of money and flushing huge fortunes down the welfare sewere.



Who talks "abstractly" about the liberal motivation? Since when is naked covetousness for other people's income and property "abstract?"

Clearly you are fully engaged with your Fox News channel, or Rush radio station, instead of the real world. Your choice, but don't pretend that it is informing you.

You and your brethren have cost the country success for decades by pursuing what you wish was true. Supply side economics. That making the wealthy, wealthier, accomplishes something more than that.

That idea is toxic to capitalism. One of the many people to prove that was Henry Ford when he implemented his one good idea, paying workers enough to afford the products that they built.

Pursuing supply side economics, as well as holy wars, Bush drove the country into the ground. A fact that Republicans try to obscure by the fact that he left town from the crash.

Using Keynesian economics, Democrats ended all of his disasters save one. Businesses failure to invest in productivity to maintain the standard of living that productive people enjoy. Instead, further pursuing the idea that richer rich was the answer, they rebuilt the third world with American jobs, and lavishly rewarded themselves with the money that used to be invested in productivity.

Now that the rich have enriched themselves at the expense of the middle class, they would like to sell the idea to idiots that what the country really needs are poorer poor. Our poor are too rich and our rich are too poor.

Really?

Democrats have done nothing since the days of Woodrow Wilson but engage in wholesale robbery and plunder. Sending money to Washington doesn't make anyone richer aside from useless ticks on the ass of society. Democrats have created all the economic and social problems this country has that are solvable.

Democrats are the scum of the Earth.

Perhaps you weren't born yet in 2009. I remember it well. All of the discussion about whether the Great Recession was going to turn into another Great Depression. Of course that would have been a virtual certainty if McCain/Palin had been elected to continue Bush's policies.

But, enough of us are smarter than that. Enough of us can figure out whose policies brought us to the edge, and whose policies saved us.

And enough of us were smart enough to see through Romney/Ryan's campaign to preside only over the wealthy half of thecountry.

And, I'll bet that enough of us will be smart enough to keep Republicans out of DC in 2016.

And, until they return to service to the country rather than dominion over it.

 

[PMZ]

Here's what a so-called "Republican Capitalism" situation has reaped.
Notice in the first chart show flat to declining wages in Real Dollars (constant 1982 dollars). Now some will say, "well look at the Nominal Wages" (wages with inflation included)! Real Dollars are used by economist, the Labor Department and top financial publications because it measures real growth.
The second chart shows the working class's declining share of the Annual National Income, which has been declining since the beginning of the 1980s. Notice how it coincides with the end of wage growth for the working class? The third chart shows income growth gap since the 1980s, notice the lack of growth fro 90% of income earners?

It would appear that Republicans want to start a country with no workers and no poor. Just owners and slaves.

 

[PMZ]

It's nonensense . Republican is a form of government :
A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" not the private concern of the rulers.

China can barely be called republic by the above definition.

And capitalism is an economic system. China like the rest of the world has a mixed economy system in which part of the economic activities are done by private enterprieses while others are done by the public sector.

The state still dominates in strategic "pillar" industries (such as energy and heavy industries), but private enterprise has expanded enormously, with around 30 million private businesses recorded in 2008

Notably education is a state run system in which primary and middle school education are free and compulsory.

... so much for the "Republican Captialism", whatever the neologism means.

A republic is a country without a monarch.

 

[CultureCitizen]

It's nonensense . Republican is a form of government :
A republic is a form of government in which affairs of state are a "public matter" not the private concern of the rulers.

China can barely be called republic by the above definition.

And capitalism is an economic system. China like the rest of the world has a mixed economy system in which part of the economic activities are done by private enterprieses while others are done by the public sector.

The state still dominates in strategic "pillar" industries (such as energy and heavy industries), but private enterprise has expanded enormously, with around 30 million private businesses recorded in 2008

Notably education is a state run system in which primary and middle school education are free and compulsory.

... so much for the "Republican Captialism", whatever the neologism means.

A republic is a country without a monarch.

Granted , the definition of republic is quite fuzzy ( there are 3 definitions in the dictionary) . I'll stick to the first one.
Republic | Define Republic at Dictionary.com

 

[Wildman]

So, now wingnuts are claiming to have a lock on capitalism. Republicans want unregulated capitalism; whereas Democrats want regulated capitalism. History has proven that capitalism must be regulated.

the word you really should have used "STYMIED"

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

so then why be so afraid to state proof or admit you are a liberal without the IQ to know what the so called proof might be.

See why we are 100% positive a liberal might be slow.

 

[PMZ]

Show us one example of a successful economy from unregulated capitalism.