Hacker News Reader

Comment by cmh89 | Hacker News Reader

"Leftism" is a really dumb term with no precise meaning. The "free market" has never existed and never will because capitalist inherently push for protectionist regulation.

Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide.

Left-wing movements brought universal health care, lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety, and improved working conditions for billions throughout the world with regulations.

"righests" like the monarchists caused the famine in India that killed 30 million people. Fascists in Europe caused a war that killed 60 million people.

Authoritarian populist are always bad, regardless of their stripes. I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving, but right-wing populist are just as bad, and frequently worse than their left-wing populist counterparts.

View on HN

>>Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide.

Do you really think children in feudalistic, communistic and pre-industrial societies didn't work. Children only stopped working when we as a society became rich enough they didn't have to anymore not because it was outlawed.

But we literally had to outlaw it. These are basic facts.

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

Going through and brigading the truth doesn't change it.

Only because we could afford it and not because people suddenly became enlightened regarding child work. If we were to loose access to electricity and oil, how long do you think it would take for children being forced to work again?

When Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 was passed it was estimated "only" 10% of children were working. That means 90% of them by that time already didn't have to.

Maybe check your basic facts first next time.

>Maybe check your basic facts first next time.

What are you talking about? You don't seem to have even a basic understanding of this subject. You were fundamentally wrong about needing to outlaw child labor. You didn't seem to know what the Fair Labor Standards Act was until I introduced it to you.

Capitalist are currently working to reintroduce child labor to the US to undercut wages. It's embarrassing for you to respond when you've displayed such a lack of understanding on the topic.

"Every decade following 1870, the number of children in the workforce increased, with the percentage not dropping until the 1920s.[6] Especially in textile mills, children were often hired together with both parents and could be hired for only $2 a week.[7] Their parents could both work in the mill and watch their children at the same time"

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

Child labor increased during the industrial revolution. You are simply wrong.

Please stay civil. You are talking past me. Think for a moment what are you claiming. It's obvious people loved their kids through out the history and not only started doing that in the 20th century. Why would they force them to work? Hint: kids from rich people never had to work even when there was no law about child labor.

Did you read the comment chain before jumping in? My point is that capitalism didn't improve conditions for children, it made them in many ways worse by forcing both adults and children to work harder, and in worse conditions.

Your contention that we simply got rich enough that child labor went away is not based in any reality. "Lefitist" had to pass laws to stop capitalist from using child labor. Its a fight we are still fighting today. Child labor is so hot with capitalist right now.

>>Did you read the comment chain before jumping in?

You have not responded to a single question I made. I only assume because you have no arguments and are only interested in repeating ideological tropes.

>> My point is that capitalism didn't improve conditions for children, it made them in many ways worse by forcing both adults and children to work harder, and in worse conditions.

I don't think either us can imagine how hard life was before industrialization, but millions of people leaving the country side to work in the factories should give you some information what people prefer.

>>Your contention that we simply got rich enough that child labor went away is not based in any reality. "Lefitist" had to pass laws to stop capitalist from using child labor.

This is really devoid of historical reality. Did you know some communist countries had forced child labor?

>>Its a fight we are still fighting today. Child labor is so hot with capitalist right now.

I guess have fun fighting wind mills.

> The "free market" has never existed and never will

The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south.

> Capitalism brought us children working in mines 6 days a week, company towns, and extreme poverty world wide

Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work?

> lifted billions out of poverty with governmental spending on health and safety

In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then.

> I don't know how/where you made up 150 million people starving

Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself.

>The free market has existed in the US since its inception, excluding the slave south.

Not true in the slightest. The US Customs Service was created four months after the constitution was ratified, therefore regulating what goods can be imported and making imported goods more expensive than domestic goods. The US has had a highly regulated economy since inception.

>Free markets brought the world out of poverty. Perhaps you thought medieval children did not work?

You just stated your opinion again? The free market doesn't actually exist and governmental organizations brought people out of poverty.

>In the US that all happened before government spending on that. The US poverty rate is the same it was in 1968, the inception of the Great Society programs. It had been steadily declining before then

Oh lordy, there is so much that you don't understand. Medicare and Social Security alone keep millions of seniors from dying homeless on the street every year.

>Communist countries. More to the point, every organization that has tried collective farms has failed to feed itself.

I understand WHY the number was made up. I'm asking for a citation for that number because it sounds like nonsense.

> Not true in the slightest

Nobody said it was a "perfect" free market. Nothing human is perfect. It was a decent approximation to one, thought.

Check out "The Black Book of Communism".

> Medicare and Social Security alone keep millions of seniors from dying homeless on the street every year

Somehow that didn't seem to have any effect on life expectancy or poverty statistics.

> governmental organizations brought people out of poverty

Do you really think that the enormous movement in the 19th century US of people out of poverty into the middle class came from government wealth transfer programs? Or do you think that the US population consisted of wealthy people who immigrated from Europe?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-at-birth-...

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/median-age?time=earliest....

>> Medicare and Social Security alone keep millions of seniors from dying homeless on the street every year

> Somehow that didn't seem to have any effect on life expectancy or poverty statistics.

It didn't? Again, no evidence of anything.

>Nobody said it was a "perfect" free market. Nothing human is perfect. It was a decent approximation to one, thought.

What are you talking about. Do you know the definition of 'free market'?

"an economic system in which prices are determined by *unrestricted* competition between privately owned businesses."

The United States is not, and never has been, a free market economy. Using 'perfect' and 'imperfect' is you simply trying to bend a definition to support an argument you want to make. The US market has always been highly regulated.

>Somehow that didn't seem to have any effect on life expectancy or poverty statistics.

Ah, so you're just throwing reality all the way out the window then?

>Do you really think that the enormous movement in the 19th century US of people out of poverty into the middle class came from government wealth transfer programs?

Why are you talking about wealth transfer programs? What are you talking about?

Your knowledge on this subject seems to be realllly skewed towards what someone who consumes a lot of right-wing media content would think. I encourage you to do some actual reading on the subject.

> The US market has always been highly regulated.

Describe what you consider as "highly regulated".

> Why are you talking about wealth transfer programs?

You brought up Medicare and Social Security.

> Your knowledge on this subject seems to be realllly skewed towards what someone who consumes a lot of right-wing media content would think

What I read are history books.

>Describe what you consider as "highly regulated".

The United States economy. We have trade regulations, license regulations,import and export regulations, we have standards regulations. You know, lots of restrictions on trade.

>You brought up Medicare and Social Security.

Neither of those programs are 'wealth transfer' programs.

>What I read are history books.

Oh really, what are some of your favorites?

> We have trade regulations, license regulations,import and export regulations, we have standards regulations. You know, lots of restrictions on trade.

That isn't what "highly" regulated is. Things start getting highly regulated when the government sets what prices you can charge, who you are allowed to do business with, etc.

For example, I'm in the software business. There aren't any regulations on it.

> Neither of those programs are 'wealth transfer' programs.

That's exactly what they are. SS tax receipts, for example, go directly to recipients.

> Oh really

Shocked, are you? I wouldn't want to burst your illusions. Imagine what you want.

>Things start getting highly regulated when the government sets what prices you can charge, who you are allowed to do business with, etc.

Oh! It's so convenient that the definition of 'highly regulated' for you fits perfectly into your world view. Those hundreds of thousands of pages of laws that govern trade and the tens of thousands of enforcement officials must just be my imaginiation

>For example, I'm in the software business. There aren't any regulations on it.

Your definition of regulation is different than the actual definition of regulation.

You already got your understanding of the German economy corrected by others. I think you almost certainly are a great example of someone who is a SME in one area which makes you think you are a SME in other areas, when you actually aren't.

Social Security and Medicare aren't wealth transfer programs. The United States has tons of regulations and central economic planning. Your ignorance of those facts is a deficit on your part that you can easily rectify.

Oh what the heck. I have a book for you, "Titan" by Chernow. You'll like it because Chernow tries to paint all the left wing tropes on Rockefeller. Unfortunately, his narrative facts contradict his conclusions.

After you've read it, come back and enlighten me on how "highly regulated" the oil business was in Rockefeller's days.

Another gem is "Nothing Like It In The World" by Ambrose. Ambrose also approached the topic with the usual left-wing bias, but his research completely upended his narrative. Unlike Chernow, he wrote a nice mea culpa about his transformation engendered by the facts.

"Empire of the Summer Moon" is another one that will challenge your point of view.

So your examples of books you've read are you books you disagree with? You are the primary source for your world view it appears.

Based on this post, I'm guessing you don't have any serious suggestions?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com