Comments by "James Adams" (@ExPwner) on "Ask Prof Wolff: Economic Growth in the USSR u0026 China" video.

LOL keep repeating the same old Marxist lies and talking points while ignoring the actual data. Just keep peddling that narrative no matter how many people prove you wrong.
2
@seanpol9863 yes, because it was the easiest to find at the moment. It goes into depth as to why the "studies" you posted are absolutely bogus. Do you need an easier to digest format? Try this youtube video which also goes into it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0W7aSB0BzB0 It's a short video that quickly shows how ridiculous your supposed "study" is and how it doesn't at all prove that socialism provides a better quality of life. Again, the responses to your garbage are numerous throughout the internet. Take the L.
1
@seanpol9863 that's quite the goalpost shift when you got caught trying to push "data" that is complete garbage. I don't care if the World Bank shifted goalposts too. We aren't talking about that. And one doesn't need to use a $1/day figure to show that poverty has been reduced. https://ourworldindata.org/poverty-at-higher-poverty-lines And no, I didn't reject it because it didn't suit my agenda, dumbass. I rejected it because it was a lie. You don't get to call socialist countries "capitalist" to push YOUR agenda. That was reading from your OWN LINK!
1
@seanpol9863 are you pasting a script or are you lying intentionally? The article that I linked isn't using one threshold for poverty but multiple ones and it STILL shows poverty decreasing. " But that number isn't actually based on the living costs of any actual person." Wrong. It is based upon the bare bones basics for surviving and in places of the world that aren't inflated in terms of cost of living. The UN isn't the arbiter of what it takes to live, and you're wrong because the data clearly shows that even higher thresholds for poverty are showing FEWER people in poverty. All you're doing is spamming idiotic talking points which are contrary to the facts. Do better or go away, troll.
1
@seanpol9863 you didn't answer my question. Are you spamming from a script or are you intentionally lying?
1
@seanpol9863 I'm going to ask again: are you spamming from a script or are you intentionally lying? I gave you a link showing that poverty is decreasing at higher thresholds of poverty. Why are you ignoring that? It's a simple question. "Even at a compromise, a minimum of $7.40 per day, at least, should be necessary for "basic nutrition and normal human life expectancy" don't you think?" No, I don't, because most countries are not and have not ever been as rich as the US and comparable first world countries, and holding "poverty" at an international standard to that level is not a global measure of purchasing power and the reality of poverty.
1
@seanpol9863 what are you talking about now? Capitalism has made the poor richer, dumbass. The facts show this and I linked the proof. It doesn't matter what poverty threshold you use, poverty is decreasing. Wages aren't going down either. What is it with your commies constantly spamming false narratives and ignoring data?
1
@seanpol9863 capitalism isn't exploiting anyone. The exchange of labor for a wage isn't exploiting anyone.
1
@robertgillespie3635 if a person borrows money from you and doesn't pay it back then you've done THEM a favor. Banks don't want to make loans to take people's houses from them. They're not in the business of obtaining homes but instead making money from arbitrage, namely the difference between the interest rate paid out to savers and the interest rate paid by borrowers. "The difference between the form of capitalism that developed in response to the 'shock therapy' applied to Russia in the 1990s, and the form of capitalism that developed in response to the more gradual market reforms introduced by Deng Xiaoping in China, is quite striking. " Yeah, fair enough. Most people don't like to rip off the proverbial band-aid. I wouldn't advocate for a short-sighted change in the economy like that. One has to consider all of the effects.
1
@OKEN1117 no it doesn't, dumbass. Texas didn't have a free market in energy. This talking point was refuted months ago.
1
@OKEN1117 two entirely different topics.
1
@alliedatheistalliance6776 that's absurd. There is no 99%. My interests aren't the same as yours, and my income doesn't have anything to do with aligning or not aligning with your agenda.
1