Say what you want about income and asset inequality, but capitalism has done more to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past 50 years than any other religion, aid programme or whatever else.
I think it's very important and fair to be critical about how we as a society implement capitalism, but such broad generalization misses the mark immensely.
Talk to anyone who grew up in a Communist country in the 2nd half of the 20th century if you want to validate that sentiment.
> but capitalism has done more to lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty over the past 50 years than any other religion, aid programme or whatever else.
Technology did what you ascribe to Capitalism. Most of the time thanks to state intervention, and the weaker the state, the weaker the growth (see how Asia overperformed everybody else now that laissez-faire policies are mainstream in the West).
> Talk to anyone who grew up in a Communist country in the 2nd half of the 20th century if you want to validate that sentiment.
The fact that one alternative to Capitalism was a failure doesn't mean Capitalism isn't bad.
Funny how it's technology that outmaneuvered capitalism to lift people out of poverty, but technology is being outmaneuvered by capitalism to endanger the future with AI.
Methinks capitalism is just a bogeyman you ascribe anything you don't like to.
Technology is agnostic to who gets the benefits, talking about outmaneuvering it makes no sense.
Capitalism on the other hand is the mechanism through which the owners of production assets grab an ever growing fractions of the value. When Capitalism is tamed by the state (think from the New Deal to Carter), the people get a bigger share of value created, when it's not (since Reagan) Capitalists take the Lion share.
The problem is that capitalism is a very large tent. There is no such thing as a free market, and every market where people can trade goods and services is "capitalist" by definition regardless of its rules. Some markets are good and some markets are bad, but we're having conversations about market vs no market when we should be talking about how we design markets that improve society rather than degrade it.
Ok, but let's take this to the logical conclusion that at some point there will be models which displace a large segment of the workforce. How does capitalism even function then?
