Liberals love to say capitalism has gotten millions out of poverty

Liberals love to say capitalism has gotten millions out of poverty.

gatesnotes.com/Development/Max-Roser-three-facts-everyone-should-know (fact #3)

datatopics.worldbank.org/sdgatlas/SDG-01-no-poverty.html

Debunk it, please.

Attached: SDG1-1-fig1.png (1024x622, 111.81K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=vlNPJnJCG4Y
qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d59a742845205b80ab3bc0594c2087c5
gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/business/prom/natura/natura31g.htm
gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/
thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/bill-gates-and-4bn-in-poverty/
zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/viewFile/109/109
nlihc.org/article/extreme-poverty-rise-united-states
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It's a statistical manipulation.

Dominant capitalist countries like the US have skyrocketed in many ways because the lack of a counter balance (like the USSR and Eastern communist Bloc were) has allowed the plunder of many , previously protected regions (thus enriching themselves and giving a huge raise in the average through sheer bulk of population while pretending to uplift said countries with the token Marshall Plans they always give to provide good surface data and cover up the contaminated sores of the socio-economic reality). Sure SOME progress is made in capitalism, that is undeniable, but its consumer-based imperialism is running out of steam and is bailed out in the last moment, by either massive bank loans or socialist policies, both methods will eventually crash and the poor will literally eat the rich in response.

the rising level of living standards is also partly because the US has relaxed and stopped being as active in its destruction of other countries as it did in the Cold War, (which was a way to spite the USSR). So in a way it proves the opposite, that Capitalism accepts no competition except that which promotes liberty, or rather the liberty of the powerful and rich to exact their will on the weak and poor.

Also all this data about how "poverty has dropped" and the rest of the bullshit has a statistical issue shared by all stats: the use of averages (which has a skew even without outliers in the data), data gathering biased against communism (since capitalists make up the majority of the UN) and the limits of a population sample.

and that's not even taking into account that it excludes glaring holes in methodology, such as ignoring the fact that averages built using a scale ranging between billionaires and homeless-people result in the average result being higher than the actuality of the majority, in other words wealth disparity is ignored and the resulting skew is thus also ignored.

youtube.com/watch?v=vlNPJnJCG4Y

The transition to capitalism, produced countless pre-mature deaths and continues to produce a higher mortality rate than likely would have prevailed under the socialist system. A 1986 study by Shirley Ciresto and Howard Waitzkin, based on World Bank data, found that the socialist economies of the Soviet bloc produced more favorable outcomes on measures of physical quality of life, including life expectancy, infant mortality, and caloric intake, than did capitalist economies at the same level of economic development, and as good as capitalist economies at a higher level of development.

Shirley Ceresto and Howard Waitzkin, “Economic development, political-economic system, and the physical quality of life”, American Journal of Public Health, June 1986, Vol. 76, No. 6.

Russian historian and sociologist Sergei Kara-Murza has written a great deal about the destruction of the Soviet Union, including a book along with Sergei Aksenenko entitled "The Soviet Order" in 2010 discussing the economy and its foundations. There are a few interesting quotations in the book about deficits:

Discussing a recent Russian television program comparing the Soviet and Russian economy, he notes:

Quote:

"[It was said that] under the Soviet system it was impossible to live because of the deficit. But now in Russia at least there is no deficit.

Well what can one say? After all, on the screen we just saw the figures about production in Soviet years and today [presumably similar, or perhaps even the same figures cited above]. How can this be, I ask? There was a lot of milk, and this is called deficit. There became half as much, and now there is no deficit, but abundance. But the word "deficit" means "lack". So apparently it is more important to see milk in the store than to see it on the dining table. More than this, it is evident that the current "abundance" is fake. If people were suddenly given a [decent] salary, all the products would be gone from the shelves in two days (and this is what happened in 1996, where before the election, in order to appease voters the government gave out pay and pensions)."

There are many other interesting ideas and facts in the book, discussing for instance catering, and how in 1990 84 million people enjoyed catering services in school, various industrial enterprises, construction, transportation, security services, state farms, etc. These services were provided free or with significantly subsidized prices. The authors note that these 'invisible' channels of food distribution, including catering and the products of private farming

Hunger in 1/2 huh?
qph.ec.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-d59a742845205b80ab3bc0594c2087c5

If hunger was eliminated then why did Russia produce about 3x less food under capitalism than under communism even

gks.ru/free_doc/new_site/business/prom/natura/natura31g.htm

Notice how in almost every area of food production there was a severe decline in the 1990s, before the country could afford to replace domestic production with imports with petrodollars. Also notice that things like unprocessed meats, milk, butter, flour, groat grain and bread remain below their 1990 level in 2009, while the production of cheaper foods like vegetable oils, canned goods, and processed meats increased. Also note the dramatic rise in production of of alcohol, and of cigarettes. Remember as well that 1990 was a terrible year for the USSR economically, so if the Russian Federal Service of State Statistics had chosen say 1985 as a baseline measurement contemporary Russia would look even worse off.

gowans.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/we-lived-better-then/

from about 1950 to 1970 the poverty was already spiraling down at a sharper slope than after 1991, and was still dropping, albeit at a slightly lower rate from 1970 to 1980, and after 1980 and until 1990, the poverty rate continued to drop. HOWEVER poverty here is also measured poorly since it bases it on the "living with less 2 dollars a day" which ignores the fact that in Eastern Europe, despite pay being lower, the spending was also far more even.

Example: Czechoslovakia,

in Czechoslovakia 2000Kcs = 400$ because of the skewed exchange rate however the prices in Czechoslovakia were subsidized.

The average worker in the CSSR earned, between 1500-2500 Kcs.
Items like sausage, cheese etc. cost between 1 and 10 Kcs usually, meaning that the average grocery bill was 50Kcs, meaning that even Czechoslovakia's demoted currency could provide for all that was wanted inside its borders for very little money. considering this, the poverty in the former eastern states was based on money when the states themselves were not money based societies or economies, making it wrong to measure poverty in that fashion.

thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2017/04/05/bill-gates-and-4bn-in-poverty/

Attached: wadethemarketasmeansnotmasterpovety.png (740x1100 84.58 KB, 380.14K)

Capitalism has lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty in china.

Deng's reforms have quite literally dropped many people into poverty. Read Zizek

Rates of poverty have objectively fallen precipitously since Deng. I don't think this is even debatable.
Reforms always create winners and losers, but I think it's clear that in China the reforms coincided with a huge net drop in poverty.

I will read Zizek though, which book specifically covers this.

Attached: china graph 3.png (580x385 21.84 KB, 17.66K)

Not because of Deng himself but because it was following a trend already.
I'm not a big Mao supporter, but Deng's reforms are a serious problem in China, we have BILLIONARES and yet extreme poverty and shitty living. I know. One of my old college professors lived there for 5 years, and everywhere that wasn't a City was horrifyingly poor, even compared to the times of Mao.

zizekstudies.org/index.php/IJZS/article/viewFile/109/109