[smegger001]

The same economic systems you praise resulted mass starvations due famine killing millions in the process of trying to raise them out of poverty, (see the great leap forwards). Whats really lifting them out of poverty is the west exporting manufacturing to China. its not socialism pulling China out of poverty its mercantilism. As western cash is exchanged for Chinese products, its no surprise then that as poverty has waned in China is has been waxing in the west?

[James_K]

> Whats really lifting them out of poverty is the west exporting manufacturing to China

How does one export manufacturing? It is undeniable that that China has benefited from science and innovation, but these I would consider to be the fruits of all mankind. If anything, the west has tried its hardest to keep knowledge from China. China has only advanced by systematically breaking intellectual property law that the west set up with the intention of hoarding knowledge to ourselves.

> its not socialism pulling China out of poverty

As you would expect, since China isn't really socialist. That said, there is certainly something unique about China's approach that has cause it to be much more successful than many other countries.

> As western cash is exchanged for Chinese products, its no surprise then that as poverty has waned in China is has been waxing in the west?

It should be a surprise. You cannot eat money. China consistently runs a trade surplus. That means that they give other countries more than they get in return. It is surely a great critique of the western system that China giving us stuff for free made us poorer. That the rich and powerful of our own countries discarded their citizens in favour of cheap Chinese labour. And so the benefit of all this free stuff which China has given us is focused into the hands of the few, rather than the many. This is sad, but not inevitable.

> The same economic systems you praise resulted mass starvations due famine killing millions in the process of trying to raise them out of poverty

Exactly. Just because a system lifts people out of poverty doesn't make it good. Yet the western system fails to even lift people from poverty.

[Avicebron]

>How does one export manufacturing?

By not doing it locally and purchasing it from another entity like China? they mean the export of the action of manufacturing and the associated benefits

[James_K]

So when I buy an apple from a shop instead of growing it myself, am I exporting apples to shops? No. The apple had to exist before I could buy it. Chinese factories were built by Chinese people and then the west began to buy products from them. We did not export those factories there. At most, showed China some of the knowledge required to build things. That's hardly an export, especially since a lot of this knowledge was taken without our permission and in violation of laws we set out to try and avoid other people getting it.

I suppose "coming up with the idea for something" is a good enough definition for exporting the manufacture of it, but it seems much simpler (and less egotistical) to say that "China used our scientific discoveries to advance itself" instead of "we exported manufacturing to China".

[Kamq]

> It is surely a great critique of the western system that China giving us stuff for free made us poorer.

I mean... is it? I can think of a few times that something previously expensive is suddenly made very cheap, and there's always a class of people that really don't do that well.

The closest situation I can think of is when the west was dumping food in africa [0][1]. Which made it harder for local farmers to make a living and made the food problems worse.

Unless you're talking about switching to an autocratic system where the elites can turn down cheap things in exchange for the long term benefits of local production. And, in theory, China might be able to, in theory, do that. I don't know their elite culture well enough to say otherwise. But modern Western elites definitely seem too short sighted to give that sort of power, so the critique seems like it falls flat.

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/world/americas/14iht-food...

[1]: https://www.npr.org/2006/10/13/6256274/u-s-european-subsidie...

[James_K]

> I can think of a few times that something previously expensive is suddenly made very cheap, and there's always a class of people that really don't do that well.

Obviously this will be somewhat true in the short term, but there is no reason these people can't just retrain and start doing something different.

> Unless you're talking about switching to an autocratic system where the elites can turn down cheap things in exchange for the long term benefits of local production.

It wouldn't have to be autocratic. For instance, our system is not an autocracy, yet we chose to move manufacturing to China. Not every system that makes decisions is autocratic. People could just as easily vote to do something democratically if they know it is in their own good.

But consider what is really happening in these places. They have an economic system which makes decisions about the allocation of resources. In response to the addition of new resources, these systems decided to decrease production of local resources below existing levels, and hence make people poorer as a result. The issue here is purely one of distribution and management. Suppose in the trivial case of food being dumped in Africa, said food was instead sold below market rates, and the income from this was used to subsidise farms to bring their outputs to the same price as the aid. Local manufacture remains worthwhile, prices decrease, and supply increases. Everyone benefits.

I don't think it should be crazy to envision an economic system stable enough to allow people to benefit when you give them things for free. Especially since in the future, everything will be produced for free by machines. At that point, I should like everyone to live in luxury, rather than for everyone to be poor.