3 ms·
> If you had a choice, you would choose to be poor today, than to be poor a century or two ago. The classic false dichotomy that somebody always feels the need
by JSavageOne 6y ago
> If you had a choice, you would choose to be poor today, than to be poor a century or two ago.
The classic false dichotomy that somebody always feels the need to point out in justifying the status quo.
- roenxi 6y agoThe status quo is a jawdroppingly fast and totally unprecedented reduction in poverty [0]. If my goal were to reduce poverty; my strategy would be to defend the status quo. [0] https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty
- MiroF 6y agoYou see how that's non-responsive to the parent, right?
- roenxi 6y agoIf parent wanted a direct response they should have posted a concrete suggestion. There wasn't a lot there to respond to. Technically speaking; there isn't anybody who would even blink at the idea of making things better. The status quo exists because there are a bunch of people who think [proposed change] makes things worse. Poverty isn't even a particularly important aspect of the decision making process and its extreme form might be eradicated in a generation if Africa gets hit by the same forces as Asia. It will be difficult to make such rapid improvement out to be in need of major changes.
- banads 6y agoAnd yet, there are more people living in poverty than the entire global population in 1950.
- chii 6y agothere are a lot more people now than in the 1950's too. As a proportion, is the poverty rate higher today than before? Are the currently poor today better off than the same relative level of poor in the 1950s?
- banads 6y agoThe number of people living in poverty has increased since 1950, while the rate of people living in poverty has decreased. If we're too busy patting ourselves on the back about the latter, we become blind to the existential threat posed by the former in the face of a global technological revolution which is making tools of mass destruction available better, faster, and cheaper at exponential rates.
- ZeroGravitas 6y agoHasn't most of that happened in Asia, where they are closer to Georgism in their treatment of land?
- roenxi 6y agoI dunno; but I'm broadly in favour of Georgism so that sounds good to me. I'd vote for a ~1.5% land tax and mineral royalties make sense to me.