Thinking about Friedman's chestnut that the efficacy of capitalism tends to make the few places it fails to touch stand out more aggressively in contrast, despite not causing them in any sense. Poverty is the default. But this assumes a transition between pre and post capitalism.
When the two reference frames are both within capitalism proper, what does it mean that certain instances of poverty stand out? In places where capitalism is the default, is it still even fair to say that poverty is the default? These are questions worth exploring honestly.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
I was referring to capitalism as an economic framework of free exchange rather than as an overall political economy etc. I really don't know how to do political economy analysis so I mostly avoid it and take other angles of analysis.
End of conversation
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.