[darawk]

China is successful now entirely as a result of their conversion to capitalism. This is an extremely well known fact about China. China tried communism, it went absolutely terribly. They changed to capitalism, and things got good. I can't imagine an example that more perfectly agrees with my point.

[whatever1]

How is Facebook doing in capitalist China?

[acchow]

Facebook is banned behind the Great Firewall.

Regardless, what does this have to do with the discussion?

[whatever1]

The People do not have stake at company A. Company A does not share the true values of the People. Company A is now banned. Repeat until all companies comply.

[viraptor]

True. But what does this have to do with poverty levels discussed here?

[whatever1]

That you cannot call capitalism any successful economic system. China proved that a protectionist model with colossal government intervention can successfully reduce poverty.

[darawk]

China proved that you can reduce poverty in spite of those things. There is precisely zero evidence that those policies have done anything to reduce poverty, and a mountain of evidence that those policies, in general, exacerbate poverty.

[acchow]

I believe we mean "capitalism" as in capital is held by private owners in search of profit instead of owned by the state. Not necessarily free trade with other countries.

China has a sort of partial capitalism in that some big companies are 50% owned by the state.

[JumpCrisscross]

This argument makes no sense. Huawei is banned in America.

[whatever1]

In Trump’s America.

[ericd]

It's due to national security concerns, not trade balance concerns. The ban predates Trump IIRC.

[whatever1]

Also, in which textbook is it stated that capitalism requires joint ventures of the government with every multinational company that tries to operate whithin its borders?

[darawk]

They're not fully capitalist. Their economic success began when they started their slow conversion to capitalism, and has proceeded in lockstep with their loosening of economic regulation. This is not a co-incidence.