[hackyhacky]

For all of your rah-rah capitalist boosterism, you failed to address the actual content of my argument, which is that the reason during the last 50 years that the China has had decreasing poverty, while the US has had increasing poverty, has nothing to do with capitalism, and everything to do with restrictions on capitalism (or their absence).

[CamperBob2]

As others have pointed out, that's a naïve and frankly incorrect reading of Chinese history, but it's also not something that can be addressed here.

[hackyhacky]

It evidently can be addressed here, as you yourself mentioned. No one has yet pointed out to me why my reading is "naive and frankly incorrect," so feel free to be the first.

[ivewonyoung]

I listed the reforms upthread that you ignored.

All the reforms fit a capitalistic model, not just a free commerce model.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48231586

And of course, Mao's communism was very anti-capitalistic.

[hackyhacky]

All well and good but you still haven't addressed my point which is that China's reduction of poverty is due to its central control of wages, construction, and capital.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48236489

[CamperBob2]

An assertion made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

[hackyhacky]

Here is evidence. https://www.worldfinance.com/strategy/china-the-land-of-less...

[ivewonyoung]

They had "central control of wages, construction, and capital" to a much higher degree before they started becoming capitalistic in 1976 and the poverty levels were much much worse and not going down. They only started going down once they embraced capitalism and started allowing private companies.

[hackyhacky]

That is consistent with my earlier statement: capitalism creates wealth, but you need another system to distribute it fairly. It's crazy to think that capitalism alone will "raise all boats" when this has been shown to be untrue.