9 ms·

To nuance this once again by Jason Hickel: "If we use $7.40 per day, we see a decline in the proportion of people living in poverty, but it’s not nearly as dra

by jahaja 6y ago

To nuance this once again by Jason Hickel: "If we use $7.40 per day, we see a decline in the proportion of people living in poverty, but it’s not nearly as dramatic as your rosy narrative would have it. In 1981 a staggering 71% lived in poverty. Today it hovers at 58% (for 2013, the most recent data). Suddenly your grand story of progress seems tepid, mediocre, and – in a world that’s as fabulously rich as ours – completely obscene. There is nothing worth celebrating about a world where inequality is so extreme that 58% of people are in poverty, while a few dozen billionaires have more than all of their wealth combined."

CryptoPunk 6y ago
He says the rate of progress seems tepid. But tepid compared to what? This has been the fastest reduction in the poverty rate in human history. And this reduction in the poverty rate has occurred amidst a massive population explosion, unlike say the 14th century's poverty decline, which happened as 1/3rd of the population died from the Black Death, which raised the area of arable land per capita. Also, to nuance your nuance, Hickel cites just the poverty rate. The rate of extreme poverty has dropped much more drastically: "The World Bank Group’s goals are to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. This mission underpins all of our analytical, operational, and convening work in more than 145 client countries. There has been marked progress on reducing poverty – the first of the world’s Sustainable Development Goals – over the past decades. According to the most recent estimates, in 2015, 10 percent of the world’s population or 734 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day. That’s down from nearly 36 percent or 1.9 billion people in 1990." No, the cynical outlook has no legs to stand on. Humanity is succeeding magnificently at improving its own condition, according to all direct indicators and historical standards. My only major concern is the damage industrial civilization is doing to the larger ecosystem, as thousands of species are driven to extinction as human settlements and farms engulfs their natural habitats.
- jahaja 6y ago
  > But tepid compared to what? Compared to the fact that this is not an issue of a lack of resources? Extreme poverty in the midst of an extremely rich world. That should be pretty humbling and not a cause for celebration. It's an embarrassment. If China is removed this "Good News Narrative" falls flat. Should we be praising the CCP and authoritarian state-capitalism? > The rate of extreme poverty has dropped much more drastically The problem is that people with more than $1.90 a day are still living in extreme poverty. That figure simply doesn't work in reality.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    >>Compared to the fact that this is not an issue of a lack of resources? It is an issue of a lack of resources; places with fewer resources have more poverty. Assuming the resources of humanity are collectively owned and should be equally shared is not realistic. The very resource expansion you allude to has depended on private property rights - people keeping what they earn. There is no realistic alternate history where wealth increases as fast as it did, and is equally distributed. The private property ruleset has resulted in the massive increase in productivity and decrease in poverty that we have witnessed. The progress is more rapid than during any other period in history, and other periods of history are all we have to compare to. >>Extreme poverty in the midst of an extremely rich world. On a per capita basis, the world is not extremely rich.. >>If China is removed this "Good News Narrative" falls flat. It doesn't: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl... >>Should we be praising the CCP and authoritarian state-capitalism? We should praise the CCP for emulating Hong Kong's private property ruleset: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/308134/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... >>The problem is that people with more than $1.90 a day are still living in extreme poverty. That was a problem before too. Thanks to the economic development the world has experienced, that problem has gotten less severe, especially for the subset living in the most extreme state of poverty.
    - jahaja 6y ago
      Sigh, I just can't understand why I keep trying to discuss anything with HN's resident Propertarians and their dogmatic private-property theology. > private property rights - people keeping what they earn Interesting rhetoric given that there are usually Socialists suggesting that the workers should keep what they produce. But I guess the most important part is that the owners get to keep what they "earn"? > Assuming the resources of humanity are collectively owned and should be equally shared is not realistic. But why not much much better than today? > The private property ruleset has resulted in the massive increase in productivity Just repeating your gospels time and time about doesn't make them more true. > On a per capita basis, the world is not extremely rich.. It's rich in the sense of being able to provide the basic needs of people. But what incentive is that to your dear private property owners? To not have cheap labour with bad labour regulations? > It doesn't: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl... That's a long article, what part of it do you argue rejects that China doesn't represent a large part of the people raised from poverty? > We should praise the CCP for emulating Hong Kong's private property ruleset: > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... Once again a long article that seem to mostly be about some economist arguing for Charter Cities. Why don't you actually paste your point? > That was a problem before too. Thanks to the economic development the world has experienced, that problem has gotten less severe, especially for the subset living in the most extreme state of poverty. What is even your point with this world salad? The people are still in absolute poverty? Maybe that particular person has $2.30 per day instead, but so what if it doesn't cover basic expenses?

by jahaja 6y ago

CryptoPunk 6y ago

He says the rate of progress seems tepid. But tepid compared to what? This has been the fastest reduction in the poverty rate in human history. And this reduction in the poverty rate has occurred amidst a massive population explosion, unlike say the 14th century's poverty decline, which happened as 1/3rd of the population died from the Black Death, which raised the area of arable land per capita. Also, to nuance your nuance, Hickel cites just the poverty rate. The rate of extreme poverty has dropped much more drastically: "The World Bank Group’s goals are to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. This mission underpins all of our analytical, operational, and convening work in more than 145 client countries. There has been marked progress on reducing poverty – the first of the world’s Sustainable Development Goals – over the past decades. According to the most recent estimates, in 2015, 10 percent of the world’s population or 734 million people lived on less than $1.90 a day. That’s down from nearly 36 percent or 1.9 billion people in 1990." No, the cynical outlook has no legs to stand on. Humanity is succeeding magnificently at improving its own condition, according to all direct indicators and historical standards. My only major concern is the damage industrial civilization is doing to the larger ecosystem, as thousands of species are driven to extinction as human settlements and farms engulfs their natural habitats.

jahaja 6y ago
> But tepid compared to what? Compared to the fact that this is not an issue of a lack of resources? Extreme poverty in the midst of an extremely rich world. That should be pretty humbling and not a cause for celebration. It's an embarrassment. If China is removed this "Good News Narrative" falls flat. Should we be praising the CCP and authoritarian state-capitalism? > The rate of extreme poverty has dropped much more drastically The problem is that people with more than $1.90 a day are still living in extreme poverty. That figure simply doesn't work in reality.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>Compared to the fact that this is not an issue of a lack of resources? It is an issue of a lack of resources; places with fewer resources have more poverty. Assuming the resources of humanity are collectively owned and should be equally shared is not realistic. The very resource expansion you allude to has depended on private property rights - people keeping what they earn. There is no realistic alternate history where wealth increases as fast as it did, and is equally distributed. The private property ruleset has resulted in the massive increase in productivity and decrease in poverty that we have witnessed. The progress is more rapid than during any other period in history, and other periods of history are all we have to compare to. >>Extreme poverty in the midst of an extremely rich world. On a per capita basis, the world is not extremely rich.. >>If China is removed this "Good News Narrative" falls flat. It doesn't: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-global-war-on-poverty https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl... >>Should we be praising the CCP and authoritarian state-capitalism? We should praise the CCP for emulating Hong Kong's private property ruleset: https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-politically-incorrect-guide-to-ending-poverty/308134/ https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... >>The problem is that people with more than $1.90 a day are still living in extreme poverty. That was a problem before too. Thanks to the economic development the world has experienced, that problem has gotten less severe, especially for the subset living in the most extreme state of poverty.
  - jahaja 6y ago
    Sigh, I just can't understand why I keep trying to discuss anything with HN's resident Propertarians and their dogmatic private-property theology. > private property rights - people keeping what they earn Interesting rhetoric given that there are usually Socialists suggesting that the workers should keep what they produce. But I guess the most important part is that the owners get to keep what they "earn"? > Assuming the resources of humanity are collectively owned and should be equally shared is not realistic. But why not much much better than today? > The private property ruleset has resulted in the massive increase in productivity Just repeating your gospels time and time about doesn't make them more true. > On a per capita basis, the world is not extremely rich.. It's rich in the sense of being able to provide the basic needs of people. But what incentive is that to your dear private property owners? To not have cheap labour with bad labour regulations? > It doesn't: https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl https://www.csmonitor.com/World/2016/0207/Progress-in-the-gl... That's a long article, what part of it do you argue rejects that China doesn't represent a large part of the people raised from poverty? > We should praise the CCP for emulating Hong Kong's private property ruleset: > https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/the-pol... Once again a long article that seem to mostly be about some economist arguing for Charter Cities. Why don't you actually paste your point? > That was a problem before too. Thanks to the economic development the world has experienced, that problem has gotten less severe, especially for the subset living in the most extreme state of poverty. What is even your point with this world salad? The people are still in absolute poverty? Maybe that particular person has $2.30 per day instead, but so what if it doesn't cover basic expenses?