13 ms·

For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

156 points by gruseom 15y ago

ilaksh 15y ago
This is a tiny change. Almost half of the world still lives for less than $2.00 per day. Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is significant progress or not be distressed by the inequality. If you honestly assess this fact that almost half live for less than $2.00 per day versus the "first world" consumption then you will come to the conclusion, as I have, that civilization is a myth. This is incredibly unjust.
- rglullis 15y ago
  > Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is significant progress or not be distressed by the inequality. What is your time-scale? And what would constitute "significant progress"? For all the wars and all the Sudans that we still have left in the world, I still think we are in much better shape than the Romans. Or Feudal Japan. Or XVIII century France. I remain optimistic.
- apsec112 15y ago
  "Almost half of the world still lives for less than $2.00 per day." Simply untrue. http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/worldincome1970_2006.jpg http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/worldin... "Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is significant progress" http://www.gapminder.org/world/ http://www.gapminder.org/world/ (hit "Play") "This is incredibly unjust." "To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a desert island, hunting and gathering fruit. If he's bad at it he'll work very hard and not end up with much food. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to him?" http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html
  - alexro 15y ago
    I like reading PG's essays but this one is a nonsense to me. What we (people) don't like about the rich is not their ability to make money, but their ability to corrupt the gvmt and screw the poor. All in the sake of more money.
    - bullseye 15y ago
      I'm sorry, but that is just entitlement garbage that you are spewing. I don't dispute that there are certainly corrupt individuals in the world, but to cast every person of sufficient wealth as corrupting "the gvmt" and screwing the poor is near-sighted at best. I could give you countless examples of wealthy individuals that have donated significant amounts of money and time to help the poor, both domestically and internationally, although I suspect it would be ignored. You are entitled to your opinion, but your response doesn't even address the reason the poster referenced the article. Instead, you launched into some diatribe about evil rich folk. Reading the full article probably won't change your opinion, but it does address this "us vs. them" mindset you are in to some degree. It also contains well-reasoned arguments for variation in income, including the one the grandparent post mentioned. From PGs article: But since for most of the world's history the main route to wealth was to steal it, we tend to be suspicious of rich people
      - alexro 15y ago
        Frankly, to this exactly moment the greater part of rich people doesn't help us to get less suspicious.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    I agree that progress has been made. There is enough food to feed everyone; but there is still starvation happening, mostly in Asia. Your jpeg link has a graph with an unlabled axis and no source for the data. A commonly accepted figure for people living on less than $2 per day is between 2billion and 2.7billion. But that ignores the people living very close to that, who are at risk of severe hardship if they have a failed harvest. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/poor_economics http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/poor_econo...) > "To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a desert island, hunting and gathering fruit. If he's bad at it he'll work very hard and not end up with much food. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to him?" Now introduce one other person, on a different island. This person alters the environment; more rain, less rain, hotter climate, different water temperatures and salinity etc. These all make it much harder for the first person to grow crop and catch food. Sometimes his home is destroyed in flooding. The second guy is okay, he's living comfortably. He's a bit annoyed about the cost of petrol. If he watches a lot of news he may see the first guy being flooded out of his home. Is this unfair?
- nickik 15y ago
  The problem is that we don't have a real notion how to change it in a large scale, we allready pure tons of money into poor countries but it does not really help (alot of times it even hurts). Alot of people feel like you but nobody has an idea how to help. Do you?
  - ilaksh 15y ago
    I have a lot of ideas but to start, just the basic thing you are suggesting: 'pouring' 'tons' of money into poor countries.. this is just not the reality. We won't be able to fix the problem if we can't see it. Most people are living in a false reality, a matrix reality created by the propaganda machine. The truth is that the first world exploits the second and third world and hogs the resources. These 'tons' of money are pittance. The US alone uses more oil than the next three or four countries combined. The second world barely even figures in. Its very simple: the distribution of things is just quite unfair, deliberately so. Many countries are actively repressed. The World Bank provides loans as a mechanism of economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Again, a major problem is that many of the citizens of the first world aren't even aware of this. So people in every country need accurate holistic information and to have an egalitarian perspective. The first part is not happening, as I mentioned. The second part is not the case either -- most everyone in the first world subscribe to a type of Social Darwinism which is just the latest rationale for brutal primitive classism.
    - nickik 15y ago
      First, we are spending alot of money on development, not just countries but NGOs too. Mostly in a bad way (somethimes with very good intentions sometimes with with not so got intentions). "Its very simple: the distribution of things is just quite unfair, deliberately so. Many countries are actively repressed. The World Bank provides loans as a mechanism of economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Again, a major problem is that many of the citizens of the first world aren't even aware of this." This is true in a way. The problem is that these countries let them self get hooked. - They overspend on stuff (mostly military but infrastructure too) witch the often buy from other countries instead of investing in (and thereby building) there own industries. - Then the get hooked and let the controll of there resources slide to private industrie from outside the country (witch would be ok if the taxed them enougth) All this is happening and it is bad I agree but these countries have to learn that if somebody comes and offers something its in the sellers intresst. This is not really diffrent from telcos offering bad deals you have to look at that stuff befor you buy. All this said I agree that the first world does really bad things they often act like the give a helping hand but its not really a helping hand. I agree that this needs to stop. The World Bank and the IMF do alot of bad things. I do not think that they deserve what they get but I would say that it is in part there fault. "So people in every country need accurate holistic information " You cant expect everybody to know enougth about economics but you can expect the countrie leaders to do so. The problem is that building up everything from with the west is much faster then doing it on your own and if you have bad leaders (diktators/persidents/kings) who only care for there themself, accepting "aid" from the west is the fastes way to get rich (a hole other problem is that sometimes the west helps them to stay in power) tl:dr: - What is called "aid" from 1st world often isn't - Developing countries don't look close on what they buy - Developing countries often have bad leaders --------------------------------------------------------- I just don't like the term economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Its a Free-Market there are just good players using bad players, but the bad players did not get forced to play or to play the way they did (Expet when the are actually forced like Iraq).
- ekianjo 15y ago
  The fact that there are almost 10 billions people alive on this Earth prove otherwise. The population would not flourish if everyone was poor and starving. It's pretty obvious that the world is getting richer and the poors are getting richer no matter what the gap between the poors and the richs is. Now "poor" people in the US have internet access and mobile phones. Come on !
  - kitsune_ 15y ago
    Last time I checked, the world population is at around 7 billion.
    - ekianjo 15y ago
      Well, we'll reach 10 billions in no time at the rate the world population is growing.
      - hythloday 15y ago
        The rate of population growth has been slowing[0] since 1963, and monotonically so since 1991. The UN's "medium" projection suggests that the total population peak is just over 10 billion, and the low peak is just over 8 billion[1] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_ra... [1] http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Your premise is faulty and following through on it could doom the poor of the world to continued poverty. First world consumption isn't something that's done at the expense of the 3rd world, it's something that sends money and skilled jobs to the developing world to help them bootstrap their way to wealth. Look at china, south korea, taiwan, etc. these countries have climbed out of 3rd world poverty by being "exploited" by the 1st world and have become developed and increasingly affluent. South Korea, for example, is rapidly becoming a 1st world nation. Would that more countries followed those examples.
  - alexro 15y ago
    Don't be so optimistic. The globalization project hasn't ended yet. Who will control the world is to be seen. And whether the nations will be left with the wealth they had acquired is as clear as the Libyan's future at the moment.
    - InclinedPlane 15y ago
      Don't be so vague, say what you mean, back it up with evidence.
      - alexro 15y ago
        Like everything in capitalism, third world improvements is just an investment. The debt is due already for some nations and soon the next batch will follow the "debt settlement". Look around yourself in your country. Are people good enough there and no "occupy wall street" actions taking place? I know how the things are in the helped to be "developed" countries, and one from one of those.
        alexro 15y ago
        No amount voting down can change the fact that economics is another form of war nowadays. The North American empire thrives at the moment, as the Romans did some time ago. But who wins the global world is yet to be seen.
- jvrossb 15y ago
  It comes down to this: if you think that economics is a zero-sum game, then yes, it is unjust. First world consumption comes at the expense of the poor elsewhere, the rich are leeches sucking money from the rest of the economy, and 35 hour work weeks create jobs. Good news is all signs point to economics not being a zero-sum game, and thus most of the responses you are getting are likely correct - your premise is flawed.
  - A1kmm 15y ago
    Claiming that anyone discussing inequality is implying economics is a zero-sum game is making a strawman argument. There is a continuum between two extremes - at one extreme, you have a zero sum relationship, where the total output (as measured by some sensible metric) is capped and it gets divided up, through to a view where there are unlimited resources and no constraints on growth, and the activities of people are synergistic but not competitive. Both ends of the continuum are easily shown to be fallacious, but your argument only holds if you assume the unlimited resource end of the continuum is true. The reality is that there are finite resources, and physical, biological and sociological limits how fast and efficiently they can be sustainably exploited. That said, there is clearly a lot of room for improvement in how efficiently we use resources - as many Internet startups are doing - as well as how sustainably we use them.
  - DanBC 15y ago
    There is a problem with rich people consuming things that drive poor people into unacceptable employment to provide raw materials for those things. Materials like gold, or minerals for tech, are often mined in ways that most people would find appalling. People have a perception of "fairness" and a big tech company making millions, billions of dollars of profit while people are mining minerals in dangerous conditions for very little money is seen as unjust. For someone getting $2 a small amount of money, just 50c, is a huge raise, and it would have little impact on the end price of the goods. Quite small amounts of carefully targeted money could make a big difference to developing nations - better schools, clean water, better medicine, etc. It would be really nice to see tech companies devoting a bit of time and smarts (and maybe even a bit of cash) to tackling those problems.
hsshah 15y ago
Indeed. Couple of optimistic talks at TED that shows that on an 'average' it IS getting better. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen... http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o... However, the 24/7 news cycle drums up everything that is negative and hence most of "feel" that it is getting worse.
- tfb 15y ago
  As much as I despise all of the negativity in the news, the optimistic part of me sees it as a way to shine light on the many things wrong with the world at present. While the news may be a bit of a downer, I believe the lasting effects of it are for the best. When I learn of something terrible or even of a minor crime or injustice, the first thing that comes to my mind is along these lines: "There is obviously some ideal we're working towards, but the current system is inherently flawed; so what can I do to hack this system and make it better?" Maybe someday we'll have the kinks worked out and will have managed to minimize the "bad" things happening throughout the world. And I believe the news will have ultimately played some role such improvements. The day we see more good news than bad will be a great day.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    The problem is that a skewed sense of what's going on in the world can give you a skewed sense of how to improve the world. Case in point: many people imagine that the developed world buying cheap goods and labor from the developing world is a kind of exploitation rather than a form of enrichment. It also tends to focus on exceptional events rather than on broad trends (positive or negative).
    - huxley 15y ago
      I think one would most reasonably hold that it is both a form of exploitation and a form of enrichment. The interesting part of the article is that the biggest benefit has been to those in abject poverty: "Most of the progress has been concentrated among the poorest of the poor—those who make less than $1.25 a day. The bank’s figures show only a small drop in the number of those who make less than $2 a day." One interesting bit buried in the lede was that the article also highlights the benefits of counter-cyclical fiscal expansions among governments. Those that expanded government programmes held down the damage caused by the recession. I would be interested in seeing if those that tried austerity measures suffered more. Update: changed last sentences to better reflect the point I wanted to make.
thomasdavis 15y ago
This is all bullshit, capitalism sucks, everyone needs to slow down and live a little.
- thomasdavis 15y ago
  I find it disgusting that you could even try talk of capitalism in a good light. I'm sure citizens would also find it absolutely degrading.
  - ars 15y ago
    Are you trolling or joking? Your profile indicates you are making good use of capitalism. And, supposing you are serious, what would you replace it with?
    - alexro 15y ago
      We hopefully find it rather soon. The modern form of investment bankers capitalism is not what should be considered the best of our ability as society.
    - paulhauggis 15y ago
      "And, supposing you are serious, what would you replace it with?" He wants to replace it with what every anti-capitalist wants to replace it with: a government controlled economy with ridiculously high taxes.
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
- ngokevin 15y ago
  modern society, materialism, capitalism, fast-paced, greed, today. Whip these together and you've just made yourself a mediocre high school essay thesis statement.
  - deleted 15y ago
chmike 15y ago
All depends on the criteria of poverty. It is not just a question of money. It is a question of having access to food, water, safe shelter, security, medical assistance, ... Food and energy price is raising. Are the poor people catching on on these ? I doubt it.
- vibrunazo 15y ago
  > I doubt it. Why exactly? We might not be anywhere near "good enough", but it seems dismissive to ignore it couldn't have been even worse before.
padolsey 15y ago
Almost entirely due to China.
nakkiel 15y ago
Their point is moot and I don't get their intention. They use figures from 2005 and 2008 so they can't legitimately try to relate the economic downturn to improvements in worldwide poverty.
- mcnees287 15y ago
  They have good points. You must have missed econ 101.
  - nakkiel 15y ago
    They have no points at all and you must have missed English 101. First sentence: "THE past four years have seen the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and the biggest food-price increases since the 1970s. That must surely have swollen the ranks of the poor." I'd expect them to at least address the point they are trying to make but nothing in the article supports it. The source of the article (the data) ends in 2008 so that's way too short to make any conclusion on the impact of the economic downturn. Economies have some level of inertia and I'd say that it's inversely proportional to the said economy's dynamism. They admit it themselves: "This implies that the long-term rate of poverty reduction—slightly over one percentage point a year—continued unabated in 2008-10, despite the dual crisis." Same for 2011, I'd say poor countries have seen very little investment coming from Europe in late 2011 as most economic resources were shed in the debt crisis and protection plan. "A lot of the credit goes to China" Absolutely true. Outside China, I have personally witnessed huge changes happening thanks to China and its economic power and fearless investments. They literally blow in Laos' economies and are largely responsible for Myanmar current boom, spending money where their mouth is. In the end, the article does a great job at showing one of China's good side but they certainly aren't proving their initial claim. For people with short memories, China is doing what Europe and the North America was doing during the post-WWII era. I bet they are going to make the same mistakes and it's already common knowledge they have started (they bribe foreign officials easily and generously).
lwhi 15y ago
I am not an economist, but thinking about this briefly .. could it be, the west needs to suffer economically for developing parts of the world to prosper? Are finite economics still relevant in the 21st century?
- davidw 15y ago
  No. The economy is, by and large, not a zero sum game. Otherwise, why are N billion people by and large better off than however many people there were 200 years ago?
  - lwhi 15y ago
    I see your point, but then isn't wealth always relative? If scarcity isn't used as a yard stick for money creation how can inflation be avoided?
    - davidw 15y ago
      Having enough to eat is having enough to eat: it doesn't matter if someone else eats in a fancy restaurant. Edit: status is relative - if everyone else has a Ferrari, and I only have a Fiat, I probably feel poorer. However, I still have a car that is better, faster, and safer than anything that existed 100 years ago. Edit#2: the above is one reason that worrying about what you have in an objective sense is a lot healthier than worrying about status/relative wealth.
      - lwhi 15y ago
        Doesn't totally answer my question, but thanks anyway.
      - lwhi 15y ago
        Thanks for the edit. I understand what you mean - but then wealth is relative to your neighbour. In which case I don't understand how everyone in 1800s or today can be wealthy. EDIT: prosperity -> wealth
ma2rten 15y ago
I have been to Uganda a few years ago to work on a voluntary project. If you see numbers like the number of people living under $1 per day and you see the images on TV you come to think of people in Africa just as pitiful. However, I got the feeling that the people in Uganda are actually more happy than the people in Northern Europe. Maybe wealth is actually inversely correlated with happiness?
- ticks 15y ago
  It's probably got more to do with choice. If those TED talks are to be believed, then choice is bad for mental health. If you are wealthy or live in a wealthy country then you have lots of choice. It's somewhat ironic because politicians that operate within wealthy countries will often emphasize choice as a reason for privatising public services etc.
  - mseebach 15y ago
    The problem with choice is that even knowing that it's bad for mental health, that doesn't translate into a moral prerogative to forcefully limit the choice of other people. But yeah, choice, and its cousin perspective: If a bad day involves not eating or your brother dying from preventable disease, it's not hard to see how a meal every day of the week and good health can translate into happiness.
  - yummyfajitas 15y ago
    The paradox of choice is not very robust in practice. The experiments are often difficult to replicate and small variations in experiment design make the paradox of choice vanish. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9cebd444-cd9c-11de-8162-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9cebd444-cd9c-11de-8162-00144feabd...
- haukur 15y ago
  I went to Uganda three years ago and I was amazed at their amiability and apparent happiness, especially considering their situation. I was greeted with smiles everywhere I went. I'm from Iceland and in comparison Icelanders are very cold. Perhaps the climate is a factor?
alan_cx 15y ago
Isn't this just a capitalist supporting publication trying to justify that which it supports? Poverty groups would, rightly, do the same thing. No criticism, but, well, they would wouldn't they? That's the way it is. Don't we all "big up" that which we believe in? Trouble is, every one has an agenda and its really hard to ever know the truth. I have no idea if this is self serving fantasy or reality.
- alexro 15y ago
  There are two sides of reality: the poor and the rich. This fantasy makes the richer side feel better about the poor. Don't go asking the other way around.
- roel_v 15y ago
  Instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you come with some data to support your accusations? The Economist is one of the last publications with a rigorous policy of publishing original data sources, in this case the World Bank, hardly the obscure special interest group you make it out to be. If you want to offer alternative interpretations of the data, or point out specific methodological flaws, or whatever, by all means do so - but now you're just saying 'meh I don't like this guy's ideas, he must be a shill, but I guess we'll never know because nobody can know these things anyway' - the most toxic nihilistic and intellectually dishonest 'reasoning' imaginable.
  - alexro 15y ago
    Why, on the other hand, you take your Economist and go show it to the folks mentioned? Alone in the evening. Scared?
  - calibraxis 15y ago
    I think cynicism is understandable. It is indeed an "ad-hominem" argument, but it's universal — for example, few in the West took what Pravda had to say at face value, when the Soviet Union existed. When institutions have a record of bias, their claims come under more scrutiny. It's just plain institutional analysis, which everyone uses to some extent. (The World Bank is hardly a neutral figure. Otherwise, how could the Bush administration move the neoconservative Wolfowitz from the Pentagon to head the World Bank? Did the world's population directly vote him in? It most certainly is a "special interest group", in the sense that it acts in the interests of a tiny minority.) That said, in-depth dissections of the claims themselves are certainly good, like this critique: (http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-they-mean.html http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures...)
kaffiene 15y ago
The meat of this is that China has moved it's poor upwards on average but the rest of the world is completely unchanged. A moronic article that fails to support its central thesis. All it does prove is that people in China are doing better.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
washedup 15y ago
I think it's called inflation
- roel_v 15y ago
  You should call them and let them know that you cracked the case, because 1000's of economists and development workers worldwide who have dedicated their lives to studying these issues cannot hold a candle to the kind of brilliant insights you can bring forth after just 10 seconds of pondering them /sarcasm .
  - washedup 15y ago
    I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I really think that inflation is a big part of it, and that the way we currently measure inflation can be misleading, especially since CPI is measured sans energy/food costs. A large part of the Arab Spring had to do with climbing food prices. It's true that conditions around the world are getting better as people gain more access to clean water, energy, education, etc, but using a benchmark "$1.25" to measure poverty misses the point. I should have explained my comment with more depth.
givan 15y ago
This combined with population growth will have a big pressure against nature, can earth provide the resources for all of us to be wealthy?
- nickik 15y ago
  Yes I think its is possible. There is enougth energie we just have to collect it. If there is a not enougth of one thing it will get more expensive and alternatives will become more attractive and if something is expensive enougth recycling it will be worth it. I truest in the basic market mechanism (people trie to make there own lifes better by joining the market) this has worked well for a long time.
nmridul 15y ago
I am genuinely curious why the poverty calculation is done with respect to some dollar threshold ( earning below $1.25 is poor ??). In some part of the world $1.25 (after converting to local currency) per day can buy generous meals 3 times a day and still be left with amount to pay for transport, clothing and housing. But in some part even $10 per day would make you poor. Also, a person earning more than $1.25 now compared to last year doesn't mean he crossed the poverty barrier. The ever increasing inflation would have reduced him to a worse than poverty condition. The calculation should be based on some quantity of food (amount of rice / starch he can buy with his earnings) etc.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  Those aren't currency exchange rate dollars, they are "purchasing power parity" dollar equivalents, which take into account everything you've mentioned.
  - alexro 15y ago
    It isn't true. The calculations are done for some "average" group. And the group is selected based on the research goals, can have nothing in common with say your family.
- Lazare 15y ago
  You're absolutely right, which is why that's exactly how poverty is measured. :) The World Bank actually uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars for "extreme poverty". Let's break that down: First, as I said, the World Bank uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day. PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity, which means that this is measure doesn't mean "has US $1.25 of local currency at current exchange rates", but instead means "has enough local currency to buy a basket of goods and services which could be purchased for $1.25 in the US". Or in more concrete terms, the World Bank is defining it as "can buy as much rice or flour as would cost $1.25 in the US", not "can buy $1.25 of rice or flour at local prices". Second, the measure is in constant 2005 dollars, which means that it is indeed indexed for inflation. And now you know. :) (Other poverty measures do focus directly on calories or food, but food isn't the only good or service the very poor need to purchase. That's why the World Bank uses a basket containing a mix of goods and services. Nothing's perfect, but the Bank's measure is pretty good at accurately tracking the condition of the poor both over time and between countries.)
csomar 15y ago
Poverty before revolution in Tunisia was stable at 15%. Just after the revolution, it's predicted to be, actually, more than 35%. Can we really trust the information provided since many of the poor countries (if not all) are living under authoritarian regimes?
- alexro 15y ago
  That's it. And even if the poverty was still the same or better, what we as a whole get after such interventions is excess amounts of hate. Better let the countries alone, you Barak
  - lwinkler 15y ago
    I don't quite get your point. America did not make an intervention in Tunisia. However you are right, better leave the country choose their own way.
    - alexro 15y ago
      You really believe they did just fell down, one after another, starting with Tunisia? I envy your good spirit.
      - derleth 15y ago
        OK, I have a question: What evidence would persuade you that your current idea about this is wrong?
        alexro 15y ago
        Is it the HN version of "go kill yourself" that intelligent people should use?
        eru 15y ago
        In a sense, yes. It's a very nice response in all kinds of arguments, and a question you should ask yourself often. The weaker the threshold of evidence you can offer that would change your position, and the discussion partner not being able to provide that evidence, the stronger your position.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- nickik 15y ago
  Aren't these things all calculated ajusted to inflation?
- Lazare 15y ago
  The numbers in the article adjust both for inflation and exchange rates. If you're alleging that the World Bank is fraudulently making up numbers, well... [citation needed] as they say? :)
- ig1 15y ago
  Inflation figures aren't very complicated, typically they're just a weighted collection of product prices, if you don't believe the official figures you can just calculate your own. Just create a list of items that you purchase on a regular basis, and calculate a weighted average cost for each year to give you a basket price and then compare the basket price between years to give you a measure of your personal inflation.
  - sek 15y ago
    I was talking about journalists who ignore exactly that. I wasn't just talking about individual inflation. For example, when a company that makes international sales reports record earnings in dollar, while the dollar sunk compared to almost every other currency, is this just misleading. Compare the revenue increase of the biggest companies with exchange rates, they are probably not as healthy as they appear on first sight. Maybe they are not growing at all and just the dollar inflated again.
    - roel_v 15y ago
      Do you even know what inflation means? You keep using it in contexts that suggest you have an entirely wrong idea of it.
      - 15y ago
PaulMcCartney 15y ago
This is good news. However, I believe the reason we think poverty is bad is because we associate it with a poor quality of life. In this vein, poverty is only one slice of the pie. Other factors must still be considered such as, do these people have sufficient medical resources available to them and are they living in middle of a war? What goods are they deprived of and what evils are they plagued by?
mgunes 15y ago
If cited in support of the merits of the capitalist mode of production and growth, the absolute number of people below the threshold of hunger (not universally identifiable as "poverty") as calculated via the parity of a centrally controlled currency declining for the first time ever is absolutely embarrassing. I'd expect producers of post-crisis feel-good statistical acrobatics to set their standards much higher.
- roel_v 15y ago
  I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that absolute numbers give off the wrong impression because the population overall is declining? If so, you're flat out wrong, because global overall population trends are still pointing up, more pronounced so in the areas where there is the most poverty. Or are you hinting at issues with using PPP as the metric? If so, what's your problem with it?
- thomasdavis 15y ago
  Great post aha good to see other Marxist on here. sigh

156 points by gruseom 15y ago

This is a tiny change. Almost half of the world still lives for less than $2.00 per day. Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is significant progress or not be distressed by the inequality. If you honestly assess this fact that almost half live for less than $2.00 per day versus the "first world" consumption then you will come to the conclusion, as I have, that civilization is a myth. This is incredibly unjust.

rglullis 15y ago
> Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is significant progress or not be distressed by the inequality. What is your time-scale? And what would constitute "significant progress"? For all the wars and all the Sudans that we still have left in the world, I still think we are in much better shape than the Romans. Or Feudal Japan. Or XVIII century France. I remain optimistic.
apsec112 15y ago
"Almost half of the world still lives for less than $2.00 per day." Simply untrue. http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/worldincome1970_2006.jpg http://rs.resalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/worldin... "Amazing that we can look at those statistics and think that there is significant progress" http://www.gapminder.org/world/ http://www.gapminder.org/world/ (hit "Play") "This is incredibly unjust." "To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a desert island, hunting and gathering fruit. If he's bad at it he'll work very hard and not end up with much food. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to him?" http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html http://www.paulgraham.com/gap.html
- alexro 15y ago
  I like reading PG's essays but this one is a nonsense to me. What we (people) don't like about the rich is not their ability to make money, but their ability to corrupt the gvmt and screw the poor. All in the sake of more money.
  - bullseye 15y ago
    I'm sorry, but that is just entitlement garbage that you are spewing. I don't dispute that there are certainly corrupt individuals in the world, but to cast every person of sufficient wealth as corrupting "the gvmt" and screwing the poor is near-sighted at best. I could give you countless examples of wealthy individuals that have donated significant amounts of money and time to help the poor, both domestically and internationally, although I suspect it would be ignored. You are entitled to your opinion, but your response doesn't even address the reason the poster referenced the article. Instead, you launched into some diatribe about evil rich folk. Reading the full article probably won't change your opinion, but it does address this "us vs. them" mindset you are in to some degree. It also contains well-reasoned arguments for variation in income, including the one the grandparent post mentioned. From PGs article: But since for most of the world's history the main route to wealth was to steal it, we tend to be suspicious of rich people
    - alexro 15y ago
      Frankly, to this exactly moment the greater part of rich people doesn't help us to get less suspicious.
- DanBC 15y ago
  I agree that progress has been made. There is enough food to feed everyone; but there is still starvation happening, mostly in Asia. Your jpeg link has a graph with an unlabled axis and no source for the data. A commonly accepted figure for people living on less than $2 per day is between 2billion and 2.7billion. But that ignores the people living very close to that, who are at risk of severe hardship if they have a failed harvest. (http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/poor_economics http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/poor_econo...) > "To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a desert island, hunting and gathering fruit. If he's bad at it he'll work very hard and not end up with much food. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to him?" Now introduce one other person, on a different island. This person alters the environment; more rain, less rain, hotter climate, different water temperatures and salinity etc. These all make it much harder for the first person to grow crop and catch food. Sometimes his home is destroyed in flooding. The second guy is okay, he's living comfortably. He's a bit annoyed about the cost of petrol. If he watches a lot of news he may see the first guy being flooded out of his home. Is this unfair?
nickik 15y ago
The problem is that we don't have a real notion how to change it in a large scale, we allready pure tons of money into poor countries but it does not really help (alot of times it even hurts). Alot of people feel like you but nobody has an idea how to help. Do you?
- ilaksh 15y ago
  I have a lot of ideas but to start, just the basic thing you are suggesting: 'pouring' 'tons' of money into poor countries.. this is just not the reality. We won't be able to fix the problem if we can't see it. Most people are living in a false reality, a matrix reality created by the propaganda machine. The truth is that the first world exploits the second and third world and hogs the resources. These 'tons' of money are pittance. The US alone uses more oil than the next three or four countries combined. The second world barely even figures in. Its very simple: the distribution of things is just quite unfair, deliberately so. Many countries are actively repressed. The World Bank provides loans as a mechanism of economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Again, a major problem is that many of the citizens of the first world aren't even aware of this. So people in every country need accurate holistic information and to have an egalitarian perspective. The first part is not happening, as I mentioned. The second part is not the case either -- most everyone in the first world subscribe to a type of Social Darwinism which is just the latest rationale for brutal primitive classism.
  - nickik 15y ago
    First, we are spending alot of money on development, not just countries but NGOs too. Mostly in a bad way (somethimes with very good intentions sometimes with with not so got intentions). "Its very simple: the distribution of things is just quite unfair, deliberately so. Many countries are actively repressed. The World Bank provides loans as a mechanism of economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Again, a major problem is that many of the citizens of the first world aren't even aware of this." This is true in a way. The problem is that these countries let them self get hooked. - They overspend on stuff (mostly military but infrastructure too) witch the often buy from other countries instead of investing in (and thereby building) there own industries. - Then the get hooked and let the controll of there resources slide to private industrie from outside the country (witch would be ok if the taxed them enougth) All this is happening and it is bad I agree but these countries have to learn that if somebody comes and offers something its in the sellers intresst. This is not really diffrent from telcos offering bad deals you have to look at that stuff befor you buy. All this said I agree that the first world does really bad things they often act like the give a helping hand but its not really a helping hand. I agree that this needs to stop. The World Bank and the IMF do alot of bad things. I do not think that they deserve what they get but I would say that it is in part there fault. "So people in every country need accurate holistic information " You cant expect everybody to know enougth about economics but you can expect the countrie leaders to do so. The problem is that building up everything from with the west is much faster then doing it on your own and if you have bad leaders (diktators/persidents/kings) who only care for there themself, accepting "aid" from the west is the fastes way to get rich (a hole other problem is that sometimes the west helps them to stay in power) tl:dr: - What is called "aid" from 1st world often isn't - Developing countries don't look close on what they buy - Developing countries often have bad leaders --------------------------------------------------------- I just don't like the term economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Its a Free-Market there are just good players using bad players, but the bad players did not get forced to play or to play the way they did (Expet when the are actually forced like Iraq).
ekianjo 15y ago
The fact that there are almost 10 billions people alive on this Earth prove otherwise. The population would not flourish if everyone was poor and starving. It's pretty obvious that the world is getting richer and the poors are getting richer no matter what the gap between the poors and the richs is. Now "poor" people in the US have internet access and mobile phones. Come on !
- kitsune_ 15y ago
  Last time I checked, the world population is at around 7 billion.
  - ekianjo 15y ago
    Well, we'll reach 10 billions in no time at the rate the world population is growing.
    - hythloday 15y ago
      The rate of population growth has been slowing[0] since 1963, and monotonically so since 1991. The UN's "medium" projection suggests that the total population peak is just over 10 billion, and the low peak is just over 8 billion[1] [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_rate_1950%E2%80%932050.svg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_population_growth_ra... [1] http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/Excel-Data/population.htm
InclinedPlane 15y ago
Your premise is faulty and following through on it could doom the poor of the world to continued poverty. First world consumption isn't something that's done at the expense of the 3rd world, it's something that sends money and skilled jobs to the developing world to help them bootstrap their way to wealth. Look at china, south korea, taiwan, etc. these countries have climbed out of 3rd world poverty by being "exploited" by the 1st world and have become developed and increasingly affluent. South Korea, for example, is rapidly becoming a 1st world nation. Would that more countries followed those examples.
- alexro 15y ago
  Don't be so optimistic. The globalization project hasn't ended yet. Who will control the world is to be seen. And whether the nations will be left with the wealth they had acquired is as clear as the Libyan's future at the moment.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    Don't be so vague, say what you mean, back it up with evidence.
    - alexro 15y ago
      Like everything in capitalism, third world improvements is just an investment. The debt is due already for some nations and soon the next batch will follow the "debt settlement". Look around yourself in your country. Are people good enough there and no "occupy wall street" actions taking place? I know how the things are in the helped to be "developed" countries, and one from one of those.
      - alexro 15y ago
        No amount voting down can change the fact that economics is another form of war nowadays. The North American empire thrives at the moment, as the Romans did some time ago. But who wins the global world is yet to be seen.
jvrossb 15y ago
It comes down to this: if you think that economics is a zero-sum game, then yes, it is unjust. First world consumption comes at the expense of the poor elsewhere, the rich are leeches sucking money from the rest of the economy, and 35 hour work weeks create jobs. Good news is all signs point to economics not being a zero-sum game, and thus most of the responses you are getting are likely correct - your premise is flawed.
- A1kmm 15y ago
  Claiming that anyone discussing inequality is implying economics is a zero-sum game is making a strawman argument. There is a continuum between two extremes - at one extreme, you have a zero sum relationship, where the total output (as measured by some sensible metric) is capped and it gets divided up, through to a view where there are unlimited resources and no constraints on growth, and the activities of people are synergistic but not competitive. Both ends of the continuum are easily shown to be fallacious, but your argument only holds if you assume the unlimited resource end of the continuum is true. The reality is that there are finite resources, and physical, biological and sociological limits how fast and efficiently they can be sustainably exploited. That said, there is clearly a lot of room for improvement in how efficiently we use resources - as many Internet startups are doing - as well as how sustainably we use them.
- DanBC 15y ago
  There is a problem with rich people consuming things that drive poor people into unacceptable employment to provide raw materials for those things. Materials like gold, or minerals for tech, are often mined in ways that most people would find appalling. People have a perception of "fairness" and a big tech company making millions, billions of dollars of profit while people are mining minerals in dangerous conditions for very little money is seen as unjust. For someone getting $2 a small amount of money, just 50c, is a huge raise, and it would have little impact on the end price of the goods. Quite small amounts of carefully targeted money could make a big difference to developing nations - better schools, clean water, better medicine, etc. It would be really nice to see tech companies devoting a bit of time and smarts (and maybe even a bit of cash) to tackling those problems.

hsshah 15y ago

Indeed. Couple of optimistic talks at TED that shows that on an 'average' it IS getting better. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence.html http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen... http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_on_poverty.html http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o... However, the 24/7 news cycle drums up everything that is negative and hence most of "feel" that it is getting worse.

tfb 15y ago
As much as I despise all of the negativity in the news, the optimistic part of me sees it as a way to shine light on the many things wrong with the world at present. While the news may be a bit of a downer, I believe the lasting effects of it are for the best. When I learn of something terrible or even of a minor crime or injustice, the first thing that comes to my mind is along these lines: "There is obviously some ideal we're working towards, but the current system is inherently flawed; so what can I do to hack this system and make it better?" Maybe someday we'll have the kinks worked out and will have managed to minimize the "bad" things happening throughout the world. And I believe the news will have ultimately played some role such improvements. The day we see more good news than bad will be a great day.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  The problem is that a skewed sense of what's going on in the world can give you a skewed sense of how to improve the world. Case in point: many people imagine that the developed world buying cheap goods and labor from the developing world is a kind of exploitation rather than a form of enrichment. It also tends to focus on exceptional events rather than on broad trends (positive or negative).
  - huxley 15y ago
    I think one would most reasonably hold that it is both a form of exploitation and a form of enrichment. The interesting part of the article is that the biggest benefit has been to those in abject poverty: "Most of the progress has been concentrated among the poorest of the poor—those who make less than $1.25 a day. The bank’s figures show only a small drop in the number of those who make less than $2 a day." One interesting bit buried in the lede was that the article also highlights the benefits of counter-cyclical fiscal expansions among governments. Those that expanded government programmes held down the damage caused by the recession. I would be interested in seeing if those that tried austerity measures suffered more. Update: changed last sentences to better reflect the point I wanted to make.

thomasdavis 15y ago

This is all bullshit, capitalism sucks, everyone needs to slow down and live a little.

thomasdavis 15y ago
I find it disgusting that you could even try talk of capitalism in a good light. I'm sure citizens would also find it absolutely degrading.
- ars 15y ago
  Are you trolling or joking? Your profile indicates you are making good use of capitalism. And, supposing you are serious, what would you replace it with?
  - alexro 15y ago
    We hopefully find it rather soon. The modern form of investment bankers capitalism is not what should be considered the best of our ability as society.
  - paulhauggis 15y ago
    "And, supposing you are serious, what would you replace it with?" He wants to replace it with what every anti-capitalist wants to replace it with: a government controlled economy with ridiculously high taxes.
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
ngokevin 15y ago
modern society, materialism, capitalism, fast-paced, greed, today. Whip these together and you've just made yourself a mediocre high school essay thesis statement.
- deleted 15y ago

chmike 15y ago

All depends on the criteria of poverty. It is not just a question of money. It is a question of having access to food, water, safe shelter, security, medical assistance, ... Food and energy price is raising. Are the poor people catching on on these ? I doubt it.

vibrunazo 15y ago
> I doubt it. Why exactly? We might not be anywhere near "good enough", but it seems dismissive to ignore it couldn't have been even worse before.

padolsey 15y ago

Almost entirely due to China.

nakkiel 15y ago

Their point is moot and I don't get their intention. They use figures from 2005 and 2008 so they can't legitimately try to relate the economic downturn to improvements in worldwide poverty.

mcnees287 15y ago
They have good points. You must have missed econ 101.
- nakkiel 15y ago
  They have no points at all and you must have missed English 101. First sentence: "THE past four years have seen the worst economic crisis since the 1930s and the biggest food-price increases since the 1970s. That must surely have swollen the ranks of the poor." I'd expect them to at least address the point they are trying to make but nothing in the article supports it. The source of the article (the data) ends in 2008 so that's way too short to make any conclusion on the impact of the economic downturn. Economies have some level of inertia and I'd say that it's inversely proportional to the said economy's dynamism. They admit it themselves: "This implies that the long-term rate of poverty reduction—slightly over one percentage point a year—continued unabated in 2008-10, despite the dual crisis." Same for 2011, I'd say poor countries have seen very little investment coming from Europe in late 2011 as most economic resources were shed in the debt crisis and protection plan. "A lot of the credit goes to China" Absolutely true. Outside China, I have personally witnessed huge changes happening thanks to China and its economic power and fearless investments. They literally blow in Laos' economies and are largely responsible for Myanmar current boom, spending money where their mouth is. In the end, the article does a great job at showing one of China's good side but they certainly aren't proving their initial claim. For people with short memories, China is doing what Europe and the North America was doing during the post-WWII era. I bet they are going to make the same mistakes and it's already common knowledge they have started (they bribe foreign officials easily and generously).

lwhi 15y ago

I am not an economist, but thinking about this briefly .. could it be, the west needs to suffer economically for developing parts of the world to prosper? Are finite economics still relevant in the 21st century?

davidw 15y ago
No. The economy is, by and large, not a zero sum game. Otherwise, why are N billion people by and large better off than however many people there were 200 years ago?
- lwhi 15y ago
  I see your point, but then isn't wealth always relative? If scarcity isn't used as a yard stick for money creation how can inflation be avoided?
  - davidw 15y ago
    Having enough to eat is having enough to eat: it doesn't matter if someone else eats in a fancy restaurant. Edit: status is relative - if everyone else has a Ferrari, and I only have a Fiat, I probably feel poorer. However, I still have a car that is better, faster, and safer than anything that existed 100 years ago. Edit#2: the above is one reason that worrying about what you have in an objective sense is a lot healthier than worrying about status/relative wealth.
    - lwhi 15y ago
      Doesn't totally answer my question, but thanks anyway.
    - lwhi 15y ago
      Thanks for the edit. I understand what you mean - but then wealth is relative to your neighbour. In which case I don't understand how everyone in 1800s or today can be wealthy. EDIT: prosperity -> wealth

ma2rten 15y ago

I have been to Uganda a few years ago to work on a voluntary project. If you see numbers like the number of people living under $1 per day and you see the images on TV you come to think of people in Africa just as pitiful. However, I got the feeling that the people in Uganda are actually more happy than the people in Northern Europe. Maybe wealth is actually inversely correlated with happiness?

ticks 15y ago
It's probably got more to do with choice. If those TED talks are to be believed, then choice is bad for mental health. If you are wealthy or live in a wealthy country then you have lots of choice. It's somewhat ironic because politicians that operate within wealthy countries will often emphasize choice as a reason for privatising public services etc.
- mseebach 15y ago
  The problem with choice is that even knowing that it's bad for mental health, that doesn't translate into a moral prerogative to forcefully limit the choice of other people. But yeah, choice, and its cousin perspective: If a bad day involves not eating or your brother dying from preventable disease, it's not hard to see how a meal every day of the week and good health can translate into happiness.
- yummyfajitas 15y ago
  The paradox of choice is not very robust in practice. The experiments are often difficult to replicate and small variations in experiment design make the paradox of choice vanish. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9cebd444-cd9c-11de-8162-00144feabdc0.html http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/9cebd444-cd9c-11de-8162-00144feabd...
haukur 15y ago
I went to Uganda three years ago and I was amazed at their amiability and apparent happiness, especially considering their situation. I was greeted with smiles everywhere I went. I'm from Iceland and in comparison Icelanders are very cold. Perhaps the climate is a factor?

alan_cx 15y ago

Isn't this just a capitalist supporting publication trying to justify that which it supports? Poverty groups would, rightly, do the same thing. No criticism, but, well, they would wouldn't they? That's the way it is. Don't we all "big up" that which we believe in? Trouble is, every one has an agenda and its really hard to ever know the truth. I have no idea if this is self serving fantasy or reality.

alexro 15y ago
There are two sides of reality: the poor and the rich. This fantasy makes the richer side feel better about the poor. Don't go asking the other way around.
roel_v 15y ago
Instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you come with some data to support your accusations? The Economist is one of the last publications with a rigorous policy of publishing original data sources, in this case the World Bank, hardly the obscure special interest group you make it out to be. If you want to offer alternative interpretations of the data, or point out specific methodological flaws, or whatever, by all means do so - but now you're just saying 'meh I don't like this guy's ideas, he must be a shill, but I guess we'll never know because nobody can know these things anyway' - the most toxic nihilistic and intellectually dishonest 'reasoning' imaginable.
- alexro 15y ago
  Why, on the other hand, you take your Economist and go show it to the folks mentioned? Alone in the evening. Scared?
- calibraxis 15y ago
  I think cynicism is understandable. It is indeed an "ad-hominem" argument, but it's universal — for example, few in the West took what Pravda had to say at face value, when the Soviet Union existed. When institutions have a record of bias, their claims come under more scrutiny. It's just plain institutional analysis, which everyone uses to some extent. (The World Bank is hardly a neutral figure. Otherwise, how could the Bush administration move the neoconservative Wolfowitz from the Pentagon to head the World Bank? Did the world's population directly vote him in? It most certainly is a "special interest group", in the sense that it acts in the interests of a tiny minority.) That said, in-depth dissections of the claims themselves are certainly good, like this critique: (http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures-what-do-they-mean.html http://www.stwr.org/globalization/world-bank-poverty-figures...)

kaffiene 15y ago

The meat of this is that China has moved it's poor upwards on average but the rest of the world is completely unchanged. A moronic article that fails to support its central thesis. All it does prove is that people in China are doing better.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

washedup 15y ago

I think it's called inflation

roel_v 15y ago
You should call them and let them know that you cracked the case, because 1000's of economists and development workers worldwide who have dedicated their lives to studying these issues cannot hold a candle to the kind of brilliant insights you can bring forth after just 10 seconds of pondering them /sarcasm .
- washedup 15y ago
  I wasn't trying to be a jerk. I really think that inflation is a big part of it, and that the way we currently measure inflation can be misleading, especially since CPI is measured sans energy/food costs. A large part of the Arab Spring had to do with climbing food prices. It's true that conditions around the world are getting better as people gain more access to clean water, energy, education, etc, but using a benchmark "$1.25" to measure poverty misses the point. I should have explained my comment with more depth.

givan 15y ago

This combined with population growth will have a big pressure against nature, can earth provide the resources for all of us to be wealthy?

nickik 15y ago
Yes I think its is possible. There is enougth energie we just have to collect it. If there is a not enougth of one thing it will get more expensive and alternatives will become more attractive and if something is expensive enougth recycling it will be worth it. I truest in the basic market mechanism (people trie to make there own lifes better by joining the market) this has worked well for a long time.

nmridul 15y ago

I am genuinely curious why the poverty calculation is done with respect to some dollar threshold ( earning below $1.25 is poor ??). In some part of the world $1.25 (after converting to local currency) per day can buy generous meals 3 times a day and still be left with amount to pay for transport, clothing and housing. But in some part even $10 per day would make you poor. Also, a person earning more than $1.25 now compared to last year doesn't mean he crossed the poverty barrier. The ever increasing inflation would have reduced him to a worse than poverty condition. The calculation should be based on some quantity of food (amount of rice / starch he can buy with his earnings) etc.

InclinedPlane 15y ago
Those aren't currency exchange rate dollars, they are "purchasing power parity" dollar equivalents, which take into account everything you've mentioned.
- alexro 15y ago
  It isn't true. The calculations are done for some "average" group. And the group is selected based on the research goals, can have nothing in common with say your family.
Lazare 15y ago
You're absolutely right, which is why that's exactly how poverty is measured. :) The World Bank actually uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars for "extreme poverty". Let's break that down: First, as I said, the World Bank uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day. PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity, which means that this is measure doesn't mean "has US $1.25 of local currency at current exchange rates", but instead means "has enough local currency to buy a basket of goods and services which could be purchased for $1.25 in the US". Or in more concrete terms, the World Bank is defining it as "can buy as much rice or flour as would cost $1.25 in the US", not "can buy $1.25 of rice or flour at local prices". Second, the measure is in constant 2005 dollars, which means that it is indeed indexed for inflation. And now you know. :) (Other poverty measures do focus directly on calories or food, but food isn't the only good or service the very poor need to purchase. That's why the World Bank uses a basket containing a mix of goods and services. Nothing's perfect, but the Bank's measure is pretty good at accurately tracking the condition of the poor both over time and between countries.)

csomar 15y ago

Poverty before revolution in Tunisia was stable at 15%. Just after the revolution, it's predicted to be, actually, more than 35%. Can we really trust the information provided since many of the poor countries (if not all) are living under authoritarian regimes?

alexro 15y ago
That's it. And even if the poverty was still the same or better, what we as a whole get after such interventions is excess amounts of hate. Better let the countries alone, you Barak
- lwinkler 15y ago
  I don't quite get your point. America did not make an intervention in Tunisia. However you are right, better leave the country choose their own way.
  - alexro 15y ago
    You really believe they did just fell down, one after another, starting with Tunisia? I envy your good spirit.
    - derleth 15y ago
      OK, I have a question: What evidence would persuade you that your current idea about this is wrong?
      - alexro 15y ago
        Is it the HN version of "go kill yourself" that intelligent people should use?
        eru 15y ago
        In a sense, yes. It's a very nice response in all kinds of arguments, and a question you should ask yourself often. The weaker the threshold of evidence you can offer that would change your position, and the discussion partner not being able to provide that evidence, the stronger your position.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

nickik 15y ago
Aren't these things all calculated ajusted to inflation?
Lazare 15y ago
The numbers in the article adjust both for inflation and exchange rates. If you're alleging that the World Bank is fraudulently making up numbers, well... [citation needed] as they say? :)
ig1 15y ago
Inflation figures aren't very complicated, typically they're just a weighted collection of product prices, if you don't believe the official figures you can just calculate your own. Just create a list of items that you purchase on a regular basis, and calculate a weighted average cost for each year to give you a basket price and then compare the basket price between years to give you a measure of your personal inflation.
- sek 15y ago
  I was talking about journalists who ignore exactly that. I wasn't just talking about individual inflation. For example, when a company that makes international sales reports record earnings in dollar, while the dollar sunk compared to almost every other currency, is this just misleading. Compare the revenue increase of the biggest companies with exchange rates, they are probably not as healthy as they appear on first sight. Maybe they are not growing at all and just the dollar inflated again.
  - roel_v 15y ago
    Do you even know what inflation means? You keep using it in contexts that suggest you have an entirely wrong idea of it.
    - 15y ago

PaulMcCartney 15y ago

This is good news. However, I believe the reason we think poverty is bad is because we associate it with a poor quality of life. In this vein, poverty is only one slice of the pie. Other factors must still be considered such as, do these people have sufficient medical resources available to them and are they living in middle of a war? What goods are they deprived of and what evils are they plagued by?

mgunes 15y ago

If cited in support of the merits of the capitalist mode of production and growth, the absolute number of people below the threshold of hunger (not universally identifiable as "poverty") as calculated via the parity of a centrally controlled currency declining for the first time ever is absolutely embarrassing. I'd expect producers of post-crisis feel-good statistical acrobatics to set their standards much higher.

roel_v 15y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying that absolute numbers give off the wrong impression because the population overall is declining? If so, you're flat out wrong, because global overall population trends are still pointing up, more pronounced so in the areas where there is the most poverty. Or are you hinting at issues with using PPP as the metric? If so, what's your problem with it?
thomasdavis 15y ago
Great post aha good to see other Marxist on here. sigh