3 ms·

> I don't see how you can even disagree with this, regardless of how you want to define 'extreme poverty'. I don't disagree that this would be an improvement,

• CryptoPunk 6y ago
  >>However it's very much not at the jubilant level that's being spouted about by you among others Which goes back to my earlier point, that the cause for jubilance is not in the current state of poverty, but in the rate at which it has improved, which is excellent by the only objective measure we have, which is in reference to other periods in history. >>Why should we accept that the only way to lift people out of poverty is by exploiting their cheap labour for a century for our own benefit when the resources are already available, just locally scarce? It's not that we have to only accept this method. It's that it's the method that Economic scholarship has found works best. And no, the resources are not available. If all wealth had been evenly divided in 1960, everyone would live on $451 a year, meaning everyone would be in extreme poverty. Global per capita GDP has risen to $11,428, which while not evenly distributed, allows for a much higher proportion of the world population to not be in poverty. source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD You're assuming that economists are lying when they say that the most effective means of raising per capita GDP and reducing poverty is to encourage profit-motivated investmemt, and that the most effective way to do that is to protect the right to own private property and freely contract with it, and you are not examining the evidence they are providing to that effect. >>No, it doesn't! That's just listing a number of countries, not the amount of people in each country. One more time!! >>In all, more than 60 developing countries around the world have seen a decline in the number of extreme poor, despite continued population growth. A decline in the number of people in extreme poverty with growing population means the proportion of the population that is in extreme poverty has declined. I shouldn't have to spoonfeed this to you. Your treatment of what I'm presenting is being done in bad faith. >>This is both incredibly naive and unsurprisingly dogmatic. No different than what anti-vaxxers say about those who trust Medicine and the findings and conclusions of medical experts.
  • jahaja 6y ago
    To assert that being skeptical towards economists bias amounts to the same thing as being an anti-vaxxer is just another level of free market fundamentalism. So your honest opinion is that every socialist alive is at the level of an anti-vaxxer, who wrongfully rejects the objective science of (free market) economics? > And no, the resources are not available. If all wealth had been evenly divided in 1960, everyone would live on $451 a year, meaning everyone would be in extreme poverty. Why on earth would you think that I mean something as stupid as just splitting everything by capita? The point would be to help people without requiring cheap labour or natural resources in return, or at least at much better conditions and without the profit motive incentivizing to milk it as long as possible. > I shouldn't have to spoonfeed this to you. Your treatment of what I'm presenting is being done in bad faith. Seriously? My assertion was that if China is taken away, the amount of people lifted out of poverty looks very different, since then you've been totally unable to figure out what I mean by "the amount of people per country" and just keep listing countries which has nothing to do with how many people each of those actually amounts to. (As a side note, those countries are most likely using the same flawed $1.90 number to measure their decline). > It's not that we have to only accept this method. It's that it's the method that Economic scholarship has found works best. This is not true, US foreign policy being the most obvious example. Countries have been coerced into it and isolated and/or invaded if refused.
    • CryptoPunk 6y ago
      You're being skeptical toward economists' bias to the extent that you are discounting the broad consensus among economists about what types of economic systems are most effective for raising productivity and reducing poverty. This is tantamount to someone being skeptical toward medical professionals' bias to the extent that they discount the broad consensus among medical professionals about vaccines being effective and safe. >>Why on earth would you think that I mean something as stupid as just splitting everything by capita? I recommend you study some economics, instead of making comments like this, that belie ignorance of the factors that contribute to poverty and its alleviation. Low per capita productivity results in people not being capable of meeting their needs, and thus being in poverty. Per capita GPD is the absolute maximum consumption that the poorest can possibly enjoy, assuming zero income inequality. A low per capita GDP is a low ceiling on quality of life, and that's irrespective of the legal status of property, the role of government and the dominant motive behind economic interactions. >> The point would be to help people without requiring cheap labour or natural resources in return, or at least at much better conditions and without the profit motive incentivizing to milk it as long as possible. I addressed your point, and you completely ignored what I wrote. One more time: if you take away the proven means of productivity growth, the people of the world will not see their means of reducing poverty and raising quality of life improve as quickly. I gave you a thought experiment to show you what this can mean in the extreme: if a policy that is completely debilitating to GDP growth were instituted in 1960, and resulted in all income being evenly distributed, the entire world would be in extreme poverty to this day. Due to the productivity gains since 1960, poverty could decline. Economic scholarship strongly suggests that protecting the right to private property, and thus allowing income inequality, is the most effective means to raise producitivity. This productivity growth has far more benefit to humanity than evenly distributed income. I'm arguing that the policy of spreading resources out evenly by government mandate, instead of allowing market forces (e.g. the profit motive) to allocate resources, as you advocate, would debilitate the ability of society to raise productivity, and that this would be a terrible trade-off, as the thought experiment shows most dramatically. >>Seriously? My assertion was that if China is taken away, the amount of people lifted out of poverty looks very different, I claimed that omitting China, the proportion of the world in poverty has declined. You're disingenuously moving the goalposts now that you see I've supported that claim with the excerpt from the article. >>This is not true, US foreign policy being the most obvious example. Countries have been coerced into it and isolated and/or invaded if refused. I don't understand what you're saying. Can you rephrase this statement, and explain how it addresses the point you quote?