I might believe it. The Philippines is today dominated by large plantations. One thesis of How Asia Works is that, although these plantations are a labor-efficient way to produce wealth for their owners, they are, net, less ecologically/biologically productive than smallholdings are (which are farmed by labor-intensive "gardening"). So the nearby countries, like Vietnam, that had land reform, which put land back into the hands of smallholders, were able to produce more food and provide more reliable subsistence to their people (if less measurable wealth).
I suspect this strongly depends on local culture, farming skills, and environment, however. The (admittedly not-unbiased) stories of land reform in e.g. Uganda (and the outcomes) are very different from those in Vietnam.
In a tropical place like the Philippines, however, I am more than willing to believe that unaccounted "ecosystem services" could provide a comfortable lifestyle for many people, if the environment were unharnessed from plantation cash-crop production. Largely because the carrying capacity is so high.
It's not due to pure capitalism which did nothing to lift people out of poverty in countries where it originated until governments stepped in and reigned it in. Now this is exactly the narrative you chose to ignore because it's inconvenient to your narrative.
The economists, who study this, overwhelmingly disagree. There are numerous examples given in the three articles I cited of a transition to greater capitalism being associated with more rapid economic development and poverty reduction, and you made the unsubstantiated claim that these are cherry-picking.
There is no evidence at all to support the idea that redistributive social programs, or regulations, accelerated poverty reduction. The exact opposite is indicated by the data.
I'm happy to compare actual data and case studies with you, but it appears that you are not willing to have a meaningful debate on this.
The data you linked isn't about unrestricted unlimited capitalism. Everywhere "capitalism" lifted people out of poverty you'll find it only happened after limitations, checks and balances, and regulations were placed on capitalism.
If you read the articles linked, and look at the other studies done on global development, you see that the places that did the most to lift those limitations and regulations, that disrupt the natural checks and balances of the market, saw the greatest improvement in quality of life.
That is why there is a strong and persistent negative correlation between government spending, as a percentage of GDP, and the rate of economic growth:
The government limiting its role to vigorously defending people's security of person and private property, and enforcing contracts, is the best way we have come up with to facilitate economic development.
You're confusing authoritarian governments with limitations on capitalism.
We already had unlimited capitalism. It had child labor, literally poison as "medicine" [1] etc.
In modern times unrestricted capitalism keeps doing the same: from sweatshops all over Asia to things like Nestle literally dissuading mothers from breastfeeding in developing nations which led to widespread problems like, you know, children dying.
>>You're confusing authoritarian governments with limitations on capitalism.
I am not. Economists specifically cite the liberalization of the economy as a major contributor to the decline in poverty, through its positive impact on the rate of economic development.
>>In modern times unrestricted capitalism keeps doing the same: from sweatshops all over Asia
Before sweatshops, the quality of life in those countries was much worse.
>>Nestle literally dissuading mothers from breastfeeding in developing nations which led to widespread problems like, you know, children dying
That can be dealt with perfectly well within the rules of capitalism, which encourages prosecution of fraud, and impartial civil courts where bad actors can be sued.
This is also an anecdote, and says nothing about the broader impact on capitalism, which is captured by statistical evidence like the rate of poverty.
I suspect this strongly depends on local culture, farming skills, and environment, however. The (admittedly not-unbiased) stories of land reform in e.g. Uganda (and the outcomes) are very different from those in Vietnam.
In a tropical place like the Philippines, however, I am more than willing to believe that unaccounted "ecosystem services" could provide a comfortable lifestyle for many people, if the environment were unharnessed from plantation cash-crop production. Largely because the carrying capacity is so high.