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

[Osomir]

ROFL! So poverty reduction is not related to economic growth? What form does this reduction in poverty take if isn't in the form of higher incomes?

This thread is specifically about poverty reduction, not outright GDP growth. In terms of China and poverty reduction the primary sector to look at has little to do with its manufacturing sector and everything to do with changes in its agricultural sector.

Agriculture is generally by far the best investment for your average developing country when it comes to the aims of poverty reduction, and that is how China removed so many of its citizens from extreme poverty (less than $2 USD per day).

Are you referring to "land reform" that means abolishing collectivist agriculture,

Yes, I'm referring to land privatization schemes.

I ask because what most leftist mean by "land reform" is precisely the opposite. They mean the kind of land reform the Chinese communist implemented when they first took power and 40 million people starved to death.

I am overwhelmingly a capitalist. Land privatization pretty much always works better in agricultural sectors than any sort of communal or socialist style farming structures. Sub-Saharan Africa is a great example of that.

 

[Osomir]

Too stupid of course!! the major change in China has been people leaving the farms and rural areas in the hundreds of millions for higher paying jobs in the cities. Sorry!!

Also, there is good evidence that the central governemnt encouraged this by cutting off money to the farms and rural areas where starvation was common.

Lol. I find it interesting that you haven't been able to provide any supporting evidence of this while having to ignore the OECD in order to push your views.

 

[Unkotare]

Based on what, the chances for your business to thrive? These days it looks like China is the better option.

You don't want to try and start a business in China. Best thing is to wait until Obama is out of office and then start one in the US.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Too stupid of course!! the major change in China has been people leaving the farms and rural areas in the hundreds of millions for higher paying jobs in the cities. Sorry!!

Also, there is good evidence that the central governemnt encouraged this by cutting off money to the farms and rural areas where starvation was common.

Lol. I find it interesting that you haven't been able to provide any supporting evidence of this while having to ignore the OECD in order to push your views.

this????????? what is this exactly???

Wiki: "By 1984, when about 99% of farm production teams had adopted the Family Production Responsibility System, the government began further economic reforms, aimed primarily at liberalizing agricultural pricing and marketing. In 1984, the government replaced mandatory procurement with voluntary contracts between farmers and the government. Later, in 1993, the government abolished the 40-year-old grain rationing system, leading to more than 90 percent of all annual agricultural produce to be sold at market-determined prices."

Odd that even wiki focuses on capitalism on the farms, not seeds like you idiotically do!!!

 

[Osomir]

Too stupid of course!! the major change in China has been people leaving the farms and rural areas in the hundreds of millions for higher paying jobs in the cities. Sorry!!

From the World Bank:

While the incidence of extreme poverty in China fell dramatically over 1980-2001, progress was uneven over time and across provinces. Rural areas accounted for the bulk of the gains to the poor, though migration to urban areas helped. The pattern of growth mattered. Rural economic growth was far more important to national poverty reduction than urban economic growth. Agriculture played a far more important role than the secondary or tertiary sources of gross domestic product (GDP).

China ' s (uneven) progress against poverty, Vol. 1 of 1

 

[bripat9643]

too stupid!! you must be the only human being on earth to attribute China's poverty reduction to seeds rather than capitalism. Are you proud of yourself?

Still going the troll route eh? Fine by me. I'm a developmental economist, while I focus primarily on Africa I am fairly comfortable with China's economic situation as well.

ROFL! You're precisely the kind of collectivist technocrat who has been screwing up the developing world for 60 years and keeping it mired in poverty. What you call "land reform" is what keeps 3rd world countries from feeding themselves. Tell us, what great success stories in Africa can you tell us about? Is there a single country in Africa that has manage to improve its economic station? Zimbabwe and South Africa have been following your prescriptions and adopting "land reform," and they are headed in the opposite direction.

From the OECD:

Christiaensen and Demery (2007) point out that the contribution of economic growth to poverty reduction might differ across sectors because the benefits of growth might be easier for poor people to obtain if growth occurs where they are located. This reasoning implicitly assumes that transferring income generated in one economic sect or or geographic location to another sector or location is difficult because of market segmentations or considerations of political economy. They too find that growth originating in agriculture is on average significantly more poverty reducing than growth originating outside agriculture. Similarly, Montalvo and Ravallion (2009) find that the primary sector rather than the secondary (manufacturing) or tertiary sectors was the real driving force in China's spectacular success against absolute poverty. They conclude that the idea of a trade-off between these sectors in terms of overall progress against poverty in China is moot, given how little evidence they found of any poverty impact of non-primary sector growth.

http://www.oecd.org/countries/cameroon/44804637.pdf

Exactly what I said.

What a mountain of bureaucratic horse squeeze. If there is one thing bureaucrats excel at, it's making excuses for their failures. It doesn't even address the issue of where growth comes from. One thing is certain, growth doesn't come about from bureaucrats ordering people how to do their business. Getting bureaucrats involved like the ones mentioned above is the surest route to economic collapse and starvation.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I'm a developmental economist,

you mean you're trained to be a brainwashed liberal!! Who else would say China eliminated 40% of world poverty with seeds rather than capitalism!!

 

[bripat9643]

Too stupid of course!! the major change in China has been people leaving the farms and rural areas in the hundreds of millions for higher paying jobs in the cities. Sorry!!

Also, there is good evidence that the central governemnt encouraged this by cutting off money to the farms and rural areas where starvation was common.

Lol. I find it interesting that you haven't been able to provide any supporting evidence of this while having to ignore the OECD in order to push your views.

The OECD is nothing but a gang of incompetent pompous baboons. It's advice has produced exactly zero benefit to the world.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Based on what, the chances for your business to thrive? These days it looks like China is the better option.

You don't want to try and start a business in China. Best thing is to wait until Obama is out of office and then start one in the US.

Or.....maybe now is a good time. Especially for true patriot entrepreneurs.

Startup activity in U.S. at 13-year high - Charlotte Business Journal

 

[bripat9643]

Too stupid of course!! the major change in China has been people leaving the farms and rural areas in the hundreds of millions for higher paying jobs in the cities. Sorry!!

From the World Bank:

While the incidence of extreme poverty in China fell dramatically over 1980-2001, progress was uneven over time and across provinces. Rural areas accounted for the bulk of the gains to the poor, though migration to urban areas helped. The pattern of growth mattered. Rural economic growth was far more important to national poverty reduction than urban economic growth. Agriculture played a far more important role than the secondary or tertiary sources of gross domestic product (GDP).

China ' s (uneven) progress against poverty, Vol. 1 of 1

Why would any rational intelligent person accept a socialist operation like the World Bank as credible on this subject?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

I am overwhelmingly a capitalist.

so did you vote for Obama??

 

[Osomir]

ROFL! You're precisely the kind of collectivist technocrat who has been screwing up the developing world for 60 years and keeping it mired in poverty. What you call "land reform" is what keeps 3rd world countries from feeding themselves. Tell us, what great success stories in Africa can you tell us about?

Africa has been growing an average of 5% per year for some time now. It is hard to generalize on such a large continent but land reform process have had huge impacts in Ethiopia and Tanzania. Ghana had the fastest economic growth rate in the world in 2011 at over 14%. There are a lot of emerging African economies. Rwanda, Kenya, Botswana, Liberia, etc.

Is there a single country in Africa that has manage to improve its economic station?

Yes, pretty much all of them are much better off than they were under Cold War politics or colonialism. Zimbabwe is perhaps the one example to the contrary.

What a mountain of bureaucratic horse squeeze. If there is one thing bureaucrats excel at, it's making excuses for their failures. It doesn't even address the issue of where growth comes from. One thing is certain, growth doesn't come about from bureaucrats ordering people how to do their business. Getting bureaucrats involved like the ones mentioned above is the surest route to economic collapse and starvation.

interesting how you are so eager to dismiss a report from the overwhelmingly capitalist OECD without a single counter argument or piece of supporting evidence for your claims. You obviously don't even know what the OECD is if you think they support Zimbabwe's land reforms. You're shooting yourself in the foot here with your assumptions.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

overwhelmingly capitalist OECD

Sorry it mostly European and socialist


Pope Benedict's second encyclical puts him squarely in company with a group of thugs known as the Organization for Economic Cooperation & Development (OECD), an international bureaucracy headquartered in Paris and comprised of 30 industrial nations, mostly in Western Europe, the Pacific Rim and North America. One of its reports concluded that low-tax nations are bad for the world economy and identified 35 jurisdictions that are guilty of "harmful tax competition."

In the OECD's view, harmful tax competition is when a nation has taxes so low that saving and investment are lured away from high-taxed OECD countries-Walter Williams

 

[Osomir]

Why would any rational intelligent person accept a socialist operation like the World Bank as credible on this subject?

You have to be the first person I've ever met who has called the World Bank a socialist organization. Do you even know what the World Bank is? If you do, then why do you feel it is a socialist organization?

What source would you trust? The import of agricultural sectors on poverty reduction really isn't in dispute when it comes to developmental economics so it would be fairly easy to find a wide variety of sources on the issue.

 

[Osomir]

overwhelmingly capitalist OECD

Sorry it mostly European and socialist

Europe isn't socialist. I'm starting to think you have a misunderstanding of the economic concept of socialism.

 

[bripat9643]

ROFL! So poverty reduction is not related to economic growth? What form does this reduction in poverty take if isn't in the form of higher incomes?

This thread is specifically about poverty reduction, not outright GDP growth. In terms of China and poverty reduction the primary sector to look at has little to do with its manufacturing sector and everything to do with changes in its agricultural sector.

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.

Agriculture is generally by far the best investment for your average developing country when it comes to the aims of poverty reduction, and that is how China removed so many of its citizens from extreme poverty (less than $2 USD per day).

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

Are you referring to "land reform" that means abolishing collectivist agriculture,

Yes, I'm referring to land privatization schemes.

In other words, it adopted capitalism in agriculture.

I ask because what most leftist mean by "land reform" is precisely the opposite. They mean the kind of land reform the Chinese communist implemented when they first took power and 40 million people starved to death.

I am overwhelmingly a capitalist. Land privatization pretty much always works better in agricultural sectors than any sort of communal or socialist style farming structures. Sub-Saharan Africa is a great example of that.

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

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Rural economic growth was far more important to national poverty reduction than urban economic growth

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"

 

[Osomir]

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.

Partly. It abolished it's system of collectivized agriculture 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 dismissing Western Europe (the OECD) But yes, it was a liberalization of their agricultural markets.

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, because it was obvious that he was trolling. His assertion that a democrat can't be a capitalist is absurd, and obviously nothing more than flamebait.

 

[Unkotare]

Based on what, the chances for your business to thrive? These days it looks like China is the better option.

You don't want to try and start a business in China. Best thing is to wait until Obama is out of office and then start one in the US.

Or.....maybe now is a good time. Especially for true patriot entrepreneurs.

Startup activity in U.S. at 13-year high - Charlotte Business Journal

It's not patriotic to be a sucker. The business environment will likely be much more favorable under the next administration.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

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