Log in

View Full Version : The bottom line, commie pukes (by Capitalist Imperial) - che



Guest
10th October 2002, 22:40
At about the same time a hodgepodge of
protesters descended on Washington, D.C. last month to protest capitalism, globalization and free trade, the United Nations and the Institute for International Studies released a triad of studies declaring that humanity is, for the most
part, in the best condition it s ever been.

World poverty is down. Income gaps are narrowing. And the reasons for all of
this are, to the protesters chagrin, none other than capitalism, globalization
and free trade.

The first study is the 2002 edition of the United Nations annual "Human Development Report." The report informs us that as of 2002, 140 of the world s 200 countries -- 70 percent -- now hold multi-party elections. Eighty-two countries representing 57 percent of the human population are fully democratic, the highest percentage in human history. After a century in which
totalitarianism -- Nazism, fascism and communism -- killed more than 170 million people, a clear move toward universal political freedom is afoot.

The numbers on world economics are good, too. World poverty fell more than 20 percent between 1990 and 1999, a decade of aggressive globalization. The number of world Internet users is expected to double by 2005 to one billion. In those regions of the world most sympathetic to liberal reform, the news is even better. In ten years, poverty halved in in East Asia and the Pacific regions.

Since 1990, 800 million people have gained new access to improved water supplies, and 750 million to improved sanitation. In the last 30 years, infant mortality rates have dropped from 96 deaths per 1,000 live births to just 56.

A study from the Institute for International Studies boasts even more good news. The author of that study, Surjit S. Bhalla, employed accounting statistics based on individual incomes instead of national incomes, which allowed him to more accurately measure wealth and poverty rates. Bhalla concludes that the world poverty rate has declined even more dramatically than the U.N. reports, from 44 percent in 1980 to just 13 percent in 2000. Bhalla attributes the decline to progress in China and India, the two most populous nations in the world, and two nations that have made significant moves toward more economic freedom in the last 20 years.

But not all the news is good. Huge swaths of humanity still fester in abject poverty. Not surprisingly, the regions witnessing the most poverty also happen to house those cultures and regimes most averse to markets and capitalism --

sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world.

Twenty countries in sub-Saharan Africa are poorer now than they were in 1990. Another 23 are, astoundingly, poorer than they were in 1975. Three hundred million people in the region now live in extreme poverty. Sub-Saharan Africa also scores lower on the "freedom index" than any region on the planet.

A third study, conducted by a group of Arab scholars and also released by the U.N., draws similar conclusions about the Arab world. It offers a scathing indictment of Arab culture s self-imposed isolation from international markets and of its oppression of political and economic freedom. The report points out that over the last 20 years, the Arab world has produced the second lowest per-capita growth rates in income in the world. Total productivity in the Arab world actually declined between 1960 and 2000, a period that saw the rise of
militant Islam and, paradoxically, unprecedented economic growth almost everywhere else.

The last half-century has seen an Arab world increasingly hostile to capitalism, particularly to property rights and trade. Consequently, the last half-century has
also seen an Arab world lapsing further and further behind the rest of humanity. Arab industrial labor output was at 32 percent of North American output in 1960. By 1990, it had fallen to just 19 percent.

The Atlantic Monthly points out that since the ninth century, the Arab world has translated only about 100,000 books into Arabic. That's equal to the number of books the nation of Spain translates in one year. Consequently, the Arab world is suffering a "brain drain," as its most promising minds migrate to societies more conducive to learning. Arab scholars have left in droves to pursue academic freedom in other countries. An astounding 51 percent of Arab
adolescents told U.N. researchers they wanted to emigrate.

These studies, taken together, paint a telling picture of the state of humanity,
and of what steps we can take to make it even better. When countries embrace
free markets, trade, and political freedom, they thrive. Incomes grow. Lifespans
lengthen. Social maladies mend. When nations isolate themselves from international markets, when they deny citizens free elections, free press, and property, they falter. Incomes wane. Disease and famine swell. Strife looms.

Communist and isolated North Korea, for example, has lost 10 percent of its
population -- two million people -- to famine since 1995. And that's in an
allegedly "developed" country.

Anti-globalization protesters can rail all they like against the evils of capitalism,
international markets and classical liberalism. But the numbers are
unmistakable. Wealth is the only remedy for poverty, and capitalism is the only
real way to create wealth.

PaulDavidHewson
10th October 2002, 22:45
give me the source(URL)

(Edited by PaulDavidHewson at 11:46 pm on Oct. 10, 2002)

Rob
10th October 2002, 22:51
Wealth is the only remedy for poverty, and capitalism is the only real way to create wealth.


nice thought, but until capitalism can bring wealth to the vast majority of people (which I doubt it can), I don't really see how that thinking works.

Guest
10th October 2002, 22:54
here:

http://www.undp.org/hdr2002/

Guest
10th October 2002, 22:58
and here:
http://207.238.152.36/publications/publica....cfm?pub_id=348 (http://207.238.152.36/publications/publication.cfm?pub_id=348)

and here:

http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/

and, of course, here...

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/...marysources.htm (http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2002/10/primarysources.htm)

antieverything
11th October 2002, 00:39
A few years ago, poverty was increasing around the world...then there was a world-wide economic boom going on when these statistics were created but recently, poverty is back on the increase. If you look at the big picture, poverty isn't getting any better.

Here is a summary of the state of poverty by region.

Latin America: In spite of some reduction in the incidence of rural and urban poverty, poverty levels remain high. Serious inequality in the region means that poverty is substantially above official predictions.

Asia: Most of the world’s poor live in Asia, where rural and urban poverty have decreased. Regionwide ratios of rural-to-urban poverty have risen since 1985.

Africa: There has been little reduction in poverty in most of the region since the late 1970s, but the previous exceptionally high ratios of rural-to-urban poverty have fallen. The proportion of poor people is highest in sub-Saharan Africa.

Middle East and North Africa: Prosperity is increasingly threatened by growing income inequality and potential civil strife.

Europe and Central Asia: Poverty is increasing rapidly. In countries of the former Soviet Union, the number of poor has more than tripled.

[hr]

This article offers a simplistic and misleading view of the economic state of the world at best...but what do you expect from a piece of propaganda from a guy who writes for "capitalist magazine" and idolizes Ayn Rand? [check out the guy's web site!]

Guest
11th October 2002, 01:19
Quote: from antieverything on 12:39 am on Oct. 11, 2002
A few years ago, poverty was increasing around the world...then there was a world-wide economic boom going on when these statistics were created but recently, poverty is back on the increase. If you look at the big picture, poverty isn't getting any better.

Here is a summary of the state of poverty by region.

Latin America: In spite of some reduction in the incidence of rural and urban poverty, poverty levels remain high. Serious inequality in the region means that poverty is substantially above official predictions.

Asia: Most of the world s poor live in Asia, where rural and urban poverty have decreased. Regionwide ratios of rural-to-urban poverty have risen since 1985.

Africa: There has been little reduction in poverty in most of the region since the late 1970s, but the previous exceptionally high ratios of rural-to-urban poverty have fallen. The proportion of poor people is highest in sub-Saharan Africa.

Middle East and North Africa: Prosperity is increasingly threatened by growing income inequality and potential civil strife.

Europe and Central Asia: Poverty is increasing rapidly. In countries of the former Soviet Union, the number of poor has more than tripled.

[hr]

This article offers a simplistic and misleading view of the economic state of the world at best...but what do you expect from a piece of propaganda from a guy who writes for "capitalist magazine" and idolizes Ayn Rand? [check out the guy's web site!]

thanks, but I'll take my assesment and its supporting sources over your generalizations

anti machine
11th October 2002, 01:35
cappie imp, did you get banned? Why didnt i know about this?

Guest
11th October 2002, 01:41
no, i'm jst at a different comp, haven't been on much lately, but i'm still around

j
11th October 2002, 01:42
I said it in a similar thread in Politics---nowhere in that article does it prove that reducing poverty rates are a result of capitalism. The argument is flawed. It makes the correlation of reducing poverty to democracy. Which may be the case. However, capitalism does not necessarily equal democracy. That is such a widespread error. When I ask my students what the opposite of communism is they say "democracy." It is such bullshit propaganda. Democracy does not mean the same thing as capitalism!!

j

j
11th October 2002, 01:51
Also, CI, those links only talk about democracy!!! Which is an important piece to communism--didn't Lenin say that??!!

j

Guest
11th October 2002, 01:56
OK,you have a good point, but democracies lend themselves better to fostering capitalism and free trade, I think that was the point

antieverything
11th October 2002, 02:08
Forget my last post...those were rural poverty statistics. Sorry bout that.

"Indeed the gaps may have narrowed. A striking inference from the study is a contrast between what may be termed an "income gap" and an "HDI gap". The (inflation-adjusted) income levels of today’s poor countries are still well below those of the leading countries in 1870. And the gap in incomes has increased. But judged by their HDIs, today’s poor countries are well ahead of where the leading countries were in 1870. This is largely because medical advances and improved living standards have brought strong increases in life expectancy.

But even if the HDI gap has narrowed in the long-term, far too many people are losing ground. Life expectancy may have increased but the quality of life for many has not improved, with many still in abject poverty. And the spread of AIDS through Africa in the past decade is reducing life expectancy in many countries...And if strongly pro-poor policies—for instance in well-targeted social expenditure—are pursued then there is a better chance that growth will be amplified into more rapid poverty reduction. This is one compelling reason for all economic policy makers, including the IMF, to pay heed more explicitly to the objective of poverty reduction."

from the IMF website.

But, fuck...nobody (well almost nobody) thinks that Globalization itself is a bad thing. It's the way it's being handled that is bad...while these institutions all agree that it is best to implement pro-poor policies (seeing as the trickle down supply side bullshit is a fucking joke)...of course, they don't, instead opting to enact pro-corporate policies (privitization of water rights, etc.)

Many of these IMF and world-bank policies have had terrible ramifications on the poor and the entire national economies. When Argentina went to IMF for a multibillion dollar loan they were refused unless made cuts in public expenditures and imposed a "tight money policy". This was precisely the mistake the IMF made in Asia in the wake of the financial crisis: instead of reflating the economy, they imposed an inflation-fighting programme that accelerates the contraction of the economy...which works (it did for the United States when Carter did it...it got Reagan elected, sadly, but it helped our economy in the long-run) but doesn't do a whole lot of good when the economy collapses completely and the country is tossed into anarchy. What happened to the whole pro-poor policy thing?

Globalization can be a good thing but only if it is enacted in a way that can help people...not corporations.

antieverything
11th October 2002, 02:11
Oh, and you know what would be a better example for a system that rapidly developes a nation, causes high growth rates, and spreads the wealth more equally...The Soviet Union...I'm no appologist, all that I'm saying is that we can do a lot better with this globalization thing.

antieverything
11th October 2002, 02:30
and remember that standards of living dropped in Mexico after NAFTA...it isn't capitalism so much as technology and democracy that is raising standards of living. Besides, a lot of these countries don't have anywhere to go but up, the ones that do have something to lose tend to be hurt.

Iepilei
11th October 2002, 06:27
capitalism does nothing but create another body of control that can out-power any government.

it's a nice concept on paper, but give someone such vast amounts of un-controlled power and their greed just keeps it from ever working effectively.