The Economist has an article praising the recent reduction of poverty over the last few decades, and cites "capitalism" as the reason.
Apparently the magazine forgot that, by most definitions, capitalism has been around for centuries even though the reduction in poverty only occurred about 20-30 years ago. So how do hundreds of years of massive worldwide poverty fit into capitalism saving the day? They don't say.
Among other things, it claims-without citation-that "around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth" and that, we are to assume, it was "capitalism" that led to developing countries recent increase in growth.
The Economist must have missed the possibility that China and India, which account for over a third of the world's population, have spent the last few decades undertaking massive state intervention into the economy while reducing their poverty.
You can call it what you want but it is certainly not the kind of "capitalism" The Economist wants.