Neoliberalism is good (or at least ok).

[Immanuel Can]

Actual poverty has only risen in a handful of war zones and failed states, everywhere else it has fallen.

LOL
Yes, you mean war zones and failed states like Greece, Spain, Italy, the UK, and the USA?

It depends on what you mean by "poverty." Having lived and travelled in the Developing World, I would suggest that if "poverty" means what happens over there, then none of the countries you list have any poverty at all. They all have some level of "social safety netting" to limit the ravages of circumstances (except to groups like the addicted and the mentally ill, who cannot be reached, it seems, by any government program). In the US, for example, the true "poverty" line is said to be around 12,000 per person, per year -- more than many whole families in the Developing World could hope to see in a lifetime.

But poverty in the Developing World, and in the world as a whole, is falling rapidly. It's one of the surprising stories of our century so far. We did not expect it, and did not see it coming...but it's happening, and at a very quick rate. There's still a long way to go, but signs are hopeful. And the places in which things are looking up fastest are the places in which individual capitalist initiative is being maximized, through things like microfinance, not where government interventions are involved.

[Sculptor]

Actual poverty has only risen in a handful of war zones and failed states, everywhere else it has fallen.

LOL
Yes, you mean war zones and failed states like Greece, Spain, Italy, the UK, and the USA?

It depends on what you mean by "poverty." Having lived and travelled in the Developing World, I would suggest that if "poverty" means what happens over there, then none of the countries you list have any poverty at all. They all have some level of "social safety netting" to limit the ravages of circumstances (except to groups like the addicted and the mentally ill, who cannot be reached, it seems, by any government program). In the US, for example, the true "poverty" line is said to be around 12,000 per person, per year -- more than many whole families in the Developing World could hope to see in a lifetime.

But poverty in the Developing World, and in the world as a whole, is falling rapidly. It's one of the surprising stories of our century so far. We did not expect it, and did not see it coming...but it's happening, and at a very quick rate. There's still a long way to go, but signs are hopeful. And the places in which things are looking up fastest are the places in which individual capitalist initiative is being maximized, through things like microfinance, not where government interventions are involved.

I was talking about an increase in poverty in the West since the inception of the Neoliberal economic model.

[Skepdick]

I was talking about an increase in poverty in the West since the inception of the Neoliberal economic model.

What is your metric and baseline for 'poverty'?

[Sculptor]

I was talking about an increase in poverty in the West since the inception of the Neoliberal economic model.

What is your metric and baseline for 'poverty'?

That it is worse now than 40 years ago.
When we did not have food banks, or people dying on the streets.

[Skepdick]

That it is worse now than 40 years ago.
When we did not have food banks, or people dying on the streets.

Small sample-size bias?

https://slides.ourworldindata.org/world ... 2015-step2

[FlashDangerpants]

Actual poverty has only risen in a handful of war zones and failed states, everywhere else it has fallen.

LOL
Yes, you mean war zones and failed states like Greece, Spain, Italy, the UK, and the USA?

Don't do stupid tricks like that please. You deliberately stripped a single sentence from its context in order to give yourself an easier target and I can't repect that sort of behaviour.

What you threw away to facilitate that dishonest stunt was...

Relative poverty has risen wherever you care to collect the numbers that give you the measure of poverty you want. Neoliberals propose many remedies for this latter issue, because we do care and we want to make the world better just like you do.

There is absolutely no sense in which either of Greece or Italy could ever have been referred to as "neoliberal", that's ridiculous.

To an extent Britain and America can though. Neverthelss neither of those countries has followed a terribly neoliberal path in recent years, and once again I think you are not bothering to wonder what that might entail, you are simply projecting some negative feelings you have onto a word that doesn't mean much to you.

There has been increasing poverty in some sections of most societies subject to particular measures, that much is true by definition. Neoliberals propose a specific set of measures to alleviate those problems. You don't care about any of that, you like to shout and point a lot, that's your entire thing.

[Immanuel Can]

I was talking about an increase in poverty in the West since the inception of the Neoliberal economic model.

I'm wondering where and how you detect this "increase." It's certainly not in the net standard of living. And the average person is doing better than at almost any time in history. So what metric do you prefer to use?

I'm also wondering when you would say this "Neoliberal model" could be said to have come into play. Do you associate it with a date, or with a theorist, or with an economic event of a particular sort?

Don't get me wrong: I'm not defending "Neoliberalism," if such a thing exists...I'm asking you particulars, so as to understand better what the claim about it is.

[FlashDangerpants]

But poverty in the Developing World, and in the world as a whole, is falling rapidly. It's one of the surprising stories of our century so far. We did not expect it, and did not see it coming...but it's happening, and at a very quick rate. There's still a long way to go, but signs are hopeful. And the places in which things are looking up fastest are the places in which individual capitalist initiative is being maximized, through things like microfinance, not where government interventions are involved.

That's a little bit of a one-sided telling. Most microfinance schemes are state or NGO backed, although whether they are actually all that effective seems to be in dispute anyway. Mobile phone based micro payments platforms are very successful though, and those are nicely capitalist for you. Also mobile phones have noticably eased poverty by providing market information to farmers and fishermen, allowing them to sell their produce where they will get the best price.

Then again, the farmers need paved roads to transport their product, for which they rely on the state. And the bigget success stories in agriculture have also come with the help of government run labs that help farmers pick the best seeds for their local fields, and put down the right amount of fertiliser.

All the most successful regions you reference have developed some network of free clinics supported by either state or NGOs with neonatal care, nutrition and vaccination programs, all of which has been utterly necessary to their success. There are also examples of wildly successful state interventions of exactly the sort that you don't like, most famously the Bolsa Familia which has lifted millions out of poverty.

The truth is that efficient markets everywhere depend on state support to function, and putting the right support into place is essential for capitalists to do their thing properly.

[Immanuel Can]

But poverty in the Developing World, and in the world as a whole, is falling rapidly. It's one of the surprising stories of our century so far. We did not expect it, and did not see it coming...but it's happening, and at a very quick rate. There's still a long way to go, but signs are hopeful. And the places in which things are looking up fastest are the places in which individual capitalist initiative is being maximized, through things like microfinance, not where government interventions are involved.

That's a little bit of a one-sided telling. Most microfinance schemes are state or NGO backed,

Actually, that's largely untrue.

Microfinance is different...corporate and private contributions got it started, and while some governments are involved now, they only followed the private-sector model. They didn't invent it, they didn't make it work, and they don't really sustain it.

And as for the local governments of the involved countries, they like microfinance because it enriches their people without the government having to do anything: but their role in it is purely to allow it. They don't make it happen, and they don't control disbursements. Client success is driven by private enterprise, not government fiat.

So the "backing" afforded by government is very late and comparatively minimal.

All the most successful regions you reference have developed some network of free clinics supported by either state or NGOs with neonatal care, nutrition and vaccination programs, all of which has been utterly necessary to their success.

Here's the problem: when you say "NGO," people don't know what you mean. It means "Non-Governmental Organization," and it's a catch-all term for charitable efforts sponsored mostly by private enterprise, and overwhelmingly staffed by religious people, and especially by Christians.

The truth is that efficient markets everywhere depend on state support to function,

That's not true, actually.

Microenterprise is a great example of something that only needs government to leave it alone in order for it to work. I've seen it work in a slum of 4 million people with no running water, no government services at all, and roving gangs of violent thugs. So long as there is any small free market, microenterprise works: it harnesses the ingenuity of the local poor and frees them to use their creativity to raise themselves. Thus it imparts to them tremendous dignity and opportunity.

I know. I've seen it. I've been there.

[henry quirk]

"Society in general wants poverty reduced"

Sure, we agree. We disagree on the 'how', is all. I skew toward gettin' out of people's way, negating all privilege for the wealthy (don't take their shit, just stop lettin' gov protect their shit above and beyond what gov does for the little guy), offer a very limited, very narrow assist to those who need it (as 'loan', not gift).

#

"suck it up like a big boy, stop being greedy and let us fix a problem with a little your money and mine"

No, you can't give my to the other kid!

Get gov out of the mix (across the board [no sittin' on the little guy & no assistin' the big guy]) and watch everyone's lives improve.

#

"You drive a car...If that insurance weren't mandatory"

Here in America: if you drive you must be insured, but you aren't obligated to drive and so aren't obligated to be insured. Universal medical care has no such opt out. For that reason alone: I can't support it.

#

"They would have done much better to learn new trades"

Some did, and without gov assist. Urge people to self-rely and they will; teach them to be (or demand that they be) dependent and they will be.

[henry quirk]

"What matters, in practice, is only what works in practice."

You lil consequentialist, you.

Sure, "increased levels of economic inequality results in increased levels of violence, instability and us/them mentality in a society" and it may indeed be in my rational, selfish interest to do whatever is necessary to off-set inequality, which will help keep violence levels at a minimum" but am I willin' to pay the cost (not the monetary one)?

No, I'm not willlin' to "do whatever is necessary" cuz what's necessary may reduce violence but hobble me.

Always on the scale of LIBERTY--------------------SAFETY, I'll skew toward LIBERTY.

A SAFE world is a straight-jacketed world.

[henry quirk]

"the USA"

Not a failed state.

[FlashDangerpants]

I was talking about an increase in poverty in the West since the inception of the Neoliberal economic model.

I'm wondering where and how you detect this "increase." It's certainly not in the net standard of living. And the average person is doing better than at almost any time in history. So what metric do you prefer to use?

It depends what poverty number you want to report. If you are looking to say poverty is up across the board, you can do that in multiple ways.

The simplest is to plot inflation against earnings, which will show a decrease in living standards. It requires a lack of sophistication and no understanding of how either thing is measured, but you get a graph to fit a certain story. It's not recommended because inflation is for day to day tracking and things drop out of the basket as they become irrelevant, dramatically skewing the figures over the longer term. Basically, as we stop buying lard and start buying movie streaming packages, it artificially makes us look poor, even though if we were still buying lard we would actually be poor.

Or you can use a worse method. Look at debt. If debt is up, poverty is up because you are counting what people own instead of what they earn and consume. This presumes that anyone with a million dollars of debt is one of the poorest people in the world. This method largely explains statistics you see where 1 guy with a positive bank balance owns as much as all the people in the world with negative equity do. I have no mortgage and some minor savings - that makes me as rish as 10% of the world's population if you are careful to count badly.

There are more legitimate options though. If food bank usage is on the rise, you can take a look at why that is and perhaps infer a rise in local poverty - although you can also infer that food banks have received more publicitly recently and they are getting more business because of that. You can look at how many kids are qualifying for free school lunches and learn something about child poverty. And you can look at how many parents have to work two jobs to pay the rent, and if that number rising but you are cheerfully saying poverty is a myth, you really need to think again.

Poverty is about more than starvation, Adam Smith knew that centries ago

A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably, though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty, which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct.

[Skepdick]

Always on the scale of LIBERTY--------------------SAFETY, I'll skew toward LIBERTY.

A SAFE world is a straight-jacketed world.

Bullshit.

Here are the top 10 things which make the world unsafe.
https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-shee ... s-of-death

Heart disease, stroke, pulmonary disease, Respiratory tract infections, Alzheimers, Diabetes, Road injuries, Diarhoea, Tuberculosis.

If we are to subsidise science&medicine to solve those problems for all of us, the world would be significantly safer for all of us.
How much LIBERTY are you going to lose, what kind of straight-jacket is being forced upon you if those diseases were to be eradicated?

[henry quirk]

There's a big difference between me exercisin', eatin' right, and gettin' check ups to preserve my health and me ponyin' up bucks to central planners who say they can solve societal violence with just a little bit (and a little bit more, and a little bit more) of my cash.

"How much LIBERTY are you going to lose if those diseases (Heart disease, stroke, pulmonary disease, Respiratory tract infections, Alzheimers, Diabetes, Road injuries, Diarhoea, Tuberculosis) were to be erradicated?"

They won't be. The whole shebang is industrialized, money-makin'. 'Cure cancer and end my career? Fuck you!' sez any oncologist you care to name.

No, leave me be to tend to me, thank you very much. I'll attend to my health and my safety (and keep my cash in my pocket).