4 ms·

This is the cost of lifting more than a billion people out of abject poverty and is an exaggeration of the negative impact (for example, ignores transfer paymen

by spikels 10y ago

This is the cost of lifting more than a billion people out of abject poverty and is an exaggeration of the negative impact (for example, ignores transfer payments & quality of life improvements). It is part of what is overall a very good thing.

danharaj 10y ago
Do you have numbers to back that up?
- spikels 10y ago
  Here are some but you should try to find numbers you trust. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
  - danharaj 10y ago
    Those are only half of the numbers. Yes, poverty has been reduced, but the global wealthy have seen their ownership over the collective wealth of humanity increase much more drastically. Where are the numbers that demonstrate that the only way to raise people out of poverty was to sell their countries' resources to the highest bidder and turn them into markets for international capital? This question investigates a counterfactual claim. Could poverty be eliminated in a world without neoliberal politics determining the structure of the global economy?
throwaway_xx9 10y ago
> It is part of what is overall a very good thing. Speak for yourself. I'd rather train and purchase from my neighbors. I guarantee people in China and India are not thinking about your welfare whatsoever.
siavosh 10y ago
I think you have a point in the sense that from the studies I've seen in the news, the average human being on earth is doing a lot better today than before in terms of income and health. But that's not the whole story. Rapid income inequality is also happening and needs to be explained and judged in terms of whether it's a good or bad thing--most feeling it's the latter.
Retric 10y ago
Ignoring the huge winners in this equation is missing something. Further, much of this progress had little to do with the west.
internaut 10y ago
That is a suspicious train of thought. You see, trade is a net positive sum or it cannot occur. At the least, this is what free trade advertises. I believe in most cases it is true with some caveats. When I hear you talk though, as we know others have, then I hear something else, which is the implication of a zero sum game occurring in one place to allow a positive sum game to happen elsewhere. Crudely, some must lose for others to win. Would you care to elaborate? Why would that be necessary?

by spikels 10y ago

danharaj 10y ago

Do you have numbers to back that up?

spikels 10y ago
Here are some but you should try to find numbers you trust. http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/poverty/overview
- danharaj 10y ago
  Those are only half of the numbers. Yes, poverty has been reduced, but the global wealthy have seen their ownership over the collective wealth of humanity increase much more drastically. Where are the numbers that demonstrate that the only way to raise people out of poverty was to sell their countries' resources to the highest bidder and turn them into markets for international capital? This question investigates a counterfactual claim. Could poverty be eliminated in a world without neoliberal politics determining the structure of the global economy?

throwaway_xx9 10y ago

> It is part of what is overall a very good thing. Speak for yourself. I'd rather train and purchase from my neighbors. I guarantee people in China and India are not thinking about your welfare whatsoever.

siavosh 10y ago

I think you have a point in the sense that from the studies I've seen in the news, the average human being on earth is doing a lot better today than before in terms of income and health. But that's not the whole story. Rapid income inequality is also happening and needs to be explained and judged in terms of whether it's a good or bad thing--most feeling it's the latter.

Retric 10y ago

Ignoring the huge winners in this equation is missing something. Further, much of this progress had little to do with the west.

internaut 10y ago

That is a suspicious train of thought. You see, trade is a net positive sum or it cannot occur. At the least, this is what free trade advertises. I believe in most cases it is true with some caveats. When I hear you talk though, as we know others have, then I hear something else, which is the implication of a zero sum game occurring in one place to allow a positive sum game to happen elsewhere. Crudely, some must lose for others to win. Would you care to elaborate? Why would that be necessary?