Are we? I want to see a lot more invested in science and tech via the university research system. That reduces the risk of failure as very clever people pursue what is interesting as well as what is considered useful with minimal or negative outcomes being part of the normal research process.

Business is very welcome to make products with these idea and I'm all for partnerships but the current system is far too slanted towards profits for a few - do we really believe people like Gates, Jobs, Musk etc etc wouldn't have bothered if they knew a big chunk of the proceeds were going back into the system that produced the key tech they exploited. Meanwhile brilliant people are struggling to get their research funded while being paid enough to have a fairly basic lifestyle and that's a real disaster.

Incentives are quite different in that climate though.

George Soros is also on the list and he just about broke the Bank of England by shorting it. He also plays a major role in influence pedaling in the election process in the US.

Yep.

I think Yak knows this but for some reason his automatic response is to push back against anything that questions the role the super rich have.

Its also worth pointing out that the gap between the raw material productive total power to reduce poverty and the actual much smaller reduction in poverty.

The reason for the large gap is the social and economic system that controls production.

lol this fits in with the free market explanation perfectly.

So he made a ton of money from a commercial POV and apparently the US system allows for their politicians to be bought, maybe we should change that instead ?

How do you propose to stop people with money being influential.

You don't completely stop it, if he wants to buy 20 billboards the size of ships and put them throughout the US of A thats fine with me and he's still influencing people. If he wants to donate a few million to some political figure, that seems like something that could be easily and reasonably be changed. Its not something the USA would want to/is going to change since corporatism is much more integrated in politics then what I would personally find ok.

We know that's not how that influence is brought to bear and we also know it's not uniquely American. I agree with you that it's not changing but this thread isn't about changing anything it's about discussing what we think should be changed.

Always fun to watch someone accuse someone else of being disingenuous then being ludicrously disingenuous in their follow up. The OP and the guy responding to me were not referencing domestic safety nets, and neither was I.

This is a thread about global poverty, including poverty in the US, welfare programs in the US have demonstrably reduced poverty and I am asking you whether you support their extension.

Firstly, markets are much more mixed than they are free. Most advanced economies have very large socialist elements in their economies.

Secondly, you are completely missing the point.

The point is that historically there is nearly always technological advance that also leads to reduction in poverty. This has happened under virtually all social systems.

Caveman invents fire, less poverty. Anyone attributing this breakthrough purely to the social and economic system of cavemen would be being very foolish.

The point is that with technological advancement you cant just assume the present system is the reason the advancement happened or the present system leads to the most optimal amount of advancement.

citation needed

(it's also ludicrously untrue btw)

The actual point is that technological advancement and growth increased far more quickly after the iron curtain fell and trade opened up. That is not a coincidence. It was predicted.

What about owning most of the Media?

Its not untrue, just the rate of change is obviously much slower in previous stages of human development and prone to reversals with the utter collapse of Civilisations. Going from really really ****ing poor to just really ****ing poor is still a reduction in poverty.

Just because social system Y is better than obvious ****wittery system X does not mean there are no systems better than Y.

Are you talking about lobbyists and think tanks wrt the influence ? I never said its unique to America even though I do think the scope of it is unique to America.

I personally don't think anything can be changed wrt political influence in America because none of the solutions would be realistic. If you ask me what we should change about America that would be make it a more socialist country like my own. Americans hardly pay any income tax at all, no wonder people get rich easy. Again, saying that is about as realistic as claiming we should redistribute the money of the 62 most wealthy people.

Come up with a large state run media organization, it's fine if they run commercial media as long as you have a viable alternative. FWIW, there is no such thing as fair and balanced media no matter how you organize it.

Owning the media is a much more effective way of influence than lobbying.

lol Ikes still pushing the iron curtain falling as a reason for the rate in global poverty. Is China capitalist Ikes? Are India and China behind the iron curtain? Could the rise in oil prices in the 70's have anything to do with increased money in the Russian economy and do you have poverty rates for countries behind the Iron Curtain prior to it falling?

Lol Ikes.

Given were we were with technology in 1989 as compared to 1962, its a very debatable statement that the technological advancement growth 89-2016 is exponentially greater than 62-89.

If anything it seems slower.

Arguably a Cold War is a pretty big incentive on technology.

Not just, like I think the King of Saud is probably pretty powerful.

Like I said, citation needed. There are hundred year chunks throughout human history where we went backwards.
Except people complaining are pushing for something very similar to X

What do you think the trend was?

Uk has the BBC which is pretty solid as SOM, but private media still has much much greater agenda setting power.

Obviously media will always have its biases, but its a problem when it all biases in the same direction.