This is a lazy copy pasta from a discussion I'm having with someone. I find myself making the same arguments over and over again and I should really put in some work to have a set of condensed stock responses to the same bullshit assertions that I deal with over and over and over again:
"Billy Bob, in 1949 China's life expectancy was catastrophically low because after decades of war, famine and lack of basic medicine. I'm not sure introducing basic sanitation, vaccination and basic health programs is the flex you think it is. the same post ww2 period saw the entire developing world experience major gains in life expectancy, without communism."
It's true that China's life expectancy was catastrophically low but it's also true that China was forced into an economy of self sufficiency due to the unilaterally imposed Western trade embargo and a few years later, the Sino-Soviet split. But it is hard to understand why despite this economic Isolation, you want to downplay the greatest and most sustained increase in life expectancy that the world has ever seen. You may pretend that this success is nothing to "flex" about but that's just because you are an idiot. Experts understand what an amazing accomplishment this was:
"China's growth in life expectancy at birth from 35–40 years in 1949 to 65.5 years in 1980 is among the most rapid sustained increases in documented global history (Banister and Preston 1981; Ashton et al. 1984; Coale1984; Jamison 1984; Banister 1987; Ravallion 1997; Banister and Hill 2004). These survival gains appear to have been largest during the 1950s, with a sharp reversal during the 1959-61 Great Leap Famine that was then followed by substantial progress again during the early 1960s (see Figure 1).
A more moderately-paced mortality decline continued through the later 1960s and 1970s throughout the large-scale social and economic disruptions of the Cultural Revolution (Banister and Hill 2004). Altogether, between 1963 (the first on-trend year after the Great Leap Famine) and 1980, the average annual gain in life expectancy was nearly one year of life, rising from 50 to 65.5 (World Bank 2009)."
"The baseline was lower in china, but again, the rise was due to the spread of antibiotics, vaccines and agricultural improvement, it wasn't unique to china."
It wasn't unique to China, but what was unique to China was that they were run by a communist party, they were one of the poorest countries on the planet, and they had the largest (or second largest) population on the planet. Despite these difficulties, thanks to central planning which was *unconstrained by the profit motive*, China was able to prioritize public health and education in an unprecedented way and because of this, they were able to achieve the greatest and most sustained increase in life expectancy in the history of the know universe. But tell me again how that's nothing to flex about. Thanks for showing your ignorance.
"This chart conveniently smooths over the great Chinese famine of 1959-1961 caused by the 'great leap forward' where life expectancy plunged and tens of millions of people died. It was one of the largest mass starvations in human history."
I call bullshit. You pretend that this famine was "caused" by the GLF and that it was one of the worst famines of all time. Both of these claims are demonstrably false and have no evidentiary support whatsoever. Just because they remain unchallenged in the Western echo chamber, does not mean that these silly and preposterous claims are true. In fact, this famine, like nearly all famines, was caused by bad weather and subsequent poor harvests and were not "caused" by collectivism. "Collectivism" began in 1949 and continued into the 80's but in 1959, China was hit by some of the worst weather to be seen in 50 years.
Once the weather cleared up, the harvests improved and the upgrading, modernizing, and industrialization process continued and ultimately made China's agricultural system, impervious to bad weather. So, within barely a decade of taking power, the communist party completely eradicated famine from the land that was formerly known as "the land of famine" and that, according to wikipedia, had averaged a famine a year for the previous 2000 years before the communists came to power. But go ahead and tell me that completely eradicating famine within barely a decade of taking power from "the land of famine" is nothing to flex about...
"this is entirely a strawman argument, because I never argued that china wasn't successful, I argued that this success wasn't due to central planning"
So if "central planning" doesn't get credit for the tremendous investment and focus on health care and education, who do we give credit to? Market forces? The West who maintained a unilaterally imposed and mercilessly enforced embargo? You're all kinds of stupid to pretend that the central planning of the CPC does not deserve tremendous credit for the unprecedented success that China enjoyed in nearly doubling the population, doubling caloric intake, and nearly doubling life expectancy, all despite the western trade embargo and the Sino-Soviet split. It's as if your mind had been rendered useless due to ideological blindness.
"and provided you with numerous examples and counter examples. like Japan."
Some important details that I feel stupid having to spell out to you and that you should have thought of yourself before making such a useless comparison. First, the Japanese population is a fraction of the size of China's population. Secondly, while China was forced to improve things on their own due to the Western trade embargo and Sino-Soviet split, the West was lavishing Japan with loans and direct foreign investment. Most obviously, Japan's gains were not as efficient or sustained as China's were. So despite tremendous advantages which China did not have, Japan raised life expectancy about 15 years from 1950 to 1980, while China raised life expectancy by about 25-30 years in that same time frame.
A far more useful comparison (due to very similar population and life expectancy starting points) would be between China and India. India was not subject to any embargoes and there was never an india-Soviet split. China however benefitted from a communist government and didn't suffer from the limitations associated with chaotic market forces. As a result, as I explained above, China has lapped India about six times over since both gained their independence in the late 40's. So, by 1980, the average life expectancy in India was 52 while in China it was 65. This is the most useful comparison despite India not being subjected to any trade embargoes. If anything India had the advantage, and this just demonstrates the superiority of "central planning".
"The biggest sustained gains after the famine happened during the post 78 reform era when china embraced market reforms, foreign trade and private enterprise. that is when llife expectancy climbed steadily past 70+."
Again, you are simply lying. This is not what the data says. The data, as explained by the numerous experts in the quote above proves that the greatest most sustained gains in life expectancy were between 1950 and 1980.
**I subsequently realized that I should have addressed his false allegation that the GLF famine was "one of the greatest of all time". In actual fact, mortality rates at the height of the famine were rose to what they were about ten years prior when the CPC first took power. Interestingly, the mortality rates in India during normal conditions were about the same as they were in China during the "Greatest Famine Ever" TM.
While I'm at it, I'll throw in another argument I find myself making over and over and over again. A lazy twofer copy pasta post!!!
Your perspective is warped. You are not seeing things clearly. Allow me to illustrate why I make this assertion. Let's imagine that Russia initiated a color revolutions against the legitimate Mexican government and managed to put in place a virulent anti-US government that began to repress and oppress all the pro US elements in the country.
So this coup government closed down all pro-US media, they criminalized all pro-US political parties, and the border regions where the bulk of the pro-US population resided, came under military attack when they tried to secede and had no interest being governed by the Russian puppet government.
In your narrative, the US is the bad guy and the aggressor when the US agrees to protect the pro-US border regions from the military attacks of the Russian puppet government. Let's further imagine that in our scenario, Russia enjoys an overwhelming balance of power compared to the US. So Russia's GDP is 50 times that of the US and Russia's military spending is 20 times that of the US. Additionally. Russia has a global empire with military bases in over 75% of the world's countries. Lastly, Russia threatens to place nuclear weapons right up against the Rio Grand which allows them only a five minute flight time to hit Washington DC.
So my dude, for your position to be consistent, within the context of my hypothetical, you must denounce and condemn the US as the "instigator" of this conflict. I hope my hypothetical helps you to understand how confused I think you are for not supporting Russia's right to defend their legitimate security concerns.
For instance, in my hypothetical, it is entirely obvious that the US would be right to defend their security interests. I hope you can process what I'm explaining, with a modicum of intellectual integrity.
No comments:
Post a Comment