Comment by credit_guy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by credit_guy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> The poor have gotten slightly better off, the wealthy have gotten dramatically better off, and the gap between the two has widened.

That's a fairly common perception. Most often summarized in "the rich get richer, the poor poorer" (at least on a relative basis).

I was born in a Communist country, and I have another perception. Poverty has different levels. The most abject poverty is when you go hungry. My family didn't experience that, but we experienced the next step: severe food rationing. War-style rationing in peace times. 90% of the population in my city being subjected to that (the elite party members were not, obviously). My parents driving to a neighboring city to be able to buy potatoes and onions. My kids nowadays spend too much time on iPads and Xbox, I was spending too much time waiting in line to buy bread.

And I can only guess that there were hundreds of millions like me in all the Communist world (China included). For the most part this type of poverty has been eradicated.

I for one celebrate that.

That's a very subjective opinion and pointing out a completely different issue.

I remember going to another country to get pasta and rice by the bag - so that we had something to eat... just 25 years ago. That has little to do with poor growth distribution in US.

Having lived in a post-communist country and gaining wealth, I can see now in US that it's drastically harder to be better off here. It's a case of "everyone starts as poor" comparing to "poor have a lot of obstacles in holding onto wealth". You need at least $1mil in generational benefits to be well off in US.(either cash, quality education or other means)

The worst part for US - even moving to a rich place like NYC will not give you the necessary boost anymore(median NYC income is below national median)

Food insecurity is not specific to communist countries, it's a massive problem in capitalist countries today. The US is the richest country in the world and 37 million people experienced food insecurity in 2018 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunger_in_the_United_States

"Food insecurity" is nowhere near the same thing as going to another city to stand in line for potatoes and onions.

On the whole, decentralized distribution is always better than when centrally controlled

>"Food insecurity" is nowhere near the same thing as going to another city to stand in line for potatoes and onions.

What's the difference? Millions of people in the US have to line up at soup kitchens and food banks in order to avoid starvation.

>On the whole, decentralized distribution is always better than when centrally controlled

That's a strong claim; I'd be interested to look at evidence for it if you have any.

One major counterpoint would be the enormous reductions in poverty that China has achieved over the last decades. Quoting from Wikipedia here:

>The dramatic progress in reducing poverty over the past three decades in China is well known. According to the World Bank, more than 850 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty; China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_China

What? China is not a command economy. It used to be, pre-1970s, but no longer is. Companies adjust production in accordance to price signals, not instructions from Beijing. This is not an appropriate counter-example in any sense.

Compared to most countries in the world today, would you say the Chinese government exercises relatively more or less control over their economy?

I mean America isn't in a place to talk these days, or as the Fed would say "brrrrrrrrrrr"

It's near the median. Plenty of corruption, but they are not a command economy in any sense.

You think that half of governments have more control over their economy than China? You keep bringing up China not being a command economy today. I never said they were, just that they exercise relatively more control over their economy than other states.

In case you don't know, in addition to the portions of the Chinese economy directly owned by state-owned enterprises, the Chinese government exercises a large amount of control over the private enterprises in the country. You might find this article helpful: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/25/china-business...

All of this is distracting from my point earlier which is what exactly do you see as the difference between hunger experienced by people in communist countries in the past and the 37 million people in the US who experience food insecurity each year today? You mentioned that people don't have to "line up" for food in the US, but thousands of people do, every day.

I said food distribution is better in decentralized systems than in command economies. You brought in china as a counterexample, probably because you are unaware that they haven't had a command economy in almost half a century

What I disagreed with was when you said centralized control is always worse, not a command economy. I asked for any evidence you have for that claim and you don't seem to have any.

I'm aware of the market reforms in China over the last half century. They've moved the country closer to something like capitalism, but it's still incredibly far from anything in the West.

You seem to be unaware that ~30% of the Chinese economy is owned by state owned enterprises, and China in general, or you wouldn't say something as incorrect as "Compared to other countries, China is around the median in terms of how much control the government has over their economy."

But again, you're dodging the question of why you believe, in the US, widespread hunger is an unfortunate necessity, but in communist countries, it was the result of the economic structure. I'd encourage you to consider why you believe that, and whether it's reasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com