6 ms·
It's a little unfortunate that rather than discussing the contents of the piece we are focusing on the individual But I would like to comment on the substance
by techtivist 13y ago
It's a little unfortunate that rather than discussing the contents of the piece we are focusing on the individual
But I would like to comment on the substance because that is the link that was shared; and avoid all the on and on conflicts about the author of the piece.
I hate to be that guy, but while I appreciate the optimistic note (no pun intended), I think we really should introspect on how 2013 was actually a year of setbacks in fight against poverty and other related social problems including the ones listed by BillG, which I want to point out. I am writing on the basis of my knowledge (which I can assure you is credible) and will append references later.
1.Polio: While there are some obvious achievements, the question of Pakistan is one country that has taken long backward steps since being close to eradicating it just before 9/11, and most of that has to do with geopolitical reasons. Post 9/11 the insurgent groups started targeting polio workers and banning immunization programs alleging that they were American spies. Because none of these were allegations were substantiated, the village elders fought against their voices, and the immunization program continued with the insurgents not being able to do much. However that changed with the Laden killing which in a way vindicated the insurgents as the chief informant was a doctor affiliated with the polio program. Since then the elders lost their ability to object, and the insurgents gained their authority which has resulted in completely dismantling of the polio program with periodic killings of polio workers, the last one less than a week back.
The number of polio cases in Pakistan has grown about 40-50% since then. And one would argue there's a lot that the west can do to regain confidence for the local workers without jeopardizing the so-called continuing war on terror. This is a contentious issue, but ones that needs to be highlighted and not as simple as the Pak PM giving assurance to Gates.
2. Child mortality: Sure child mortality has gone down but it is far from the target
set in the Millennium Development Goals (UN MDGs). More importantly its not just the poorer countries that are doing badly. Amongst the worst performing countries has been India which goes on to my next point that economic growth or the rate of poverty going down means nothing more than in numbers to the state of social welfare. The overall child mortality has gone down because of two separate factors: 1. Countries in latin america and south east Asia have improved drastically through better "socialistic" maternal and child welfare programs while the rest amongst the poorer countries languish. 2. The civil wars that plagued sub saharan countries before the 2000s have gone down both in their occurrences and their casualties, of which women and children formed a huge number. Sure you hear about the current violence in the likes of South Sudan, Mali, Syria and CAR but these are nothing compared to the violence of the past and the civilian casualties are much lower in number.
3. Poverty rate: From the point above while in absolute terms poverty has gone down, social inequality has grow. More importantly the measure of poverty line is highly debated as growth in income in low and middle income counties has also seen concurrent high real inflation on the ground which is highly under measured.
4. Rich counties re-committed to saving lives: This is actually perhaps the most concerning. Just read this piece by Jeffrey Sachs, one of the world's most well known development economist who was is a key advocate of the Global Fund that Gates mentions that http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/world-to-poor-drop-dead_b_4385420.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeffrey-sachs/world-to-poor-dr...
Sorry if this sounds like a long rant. But I really strongly believe that we need to be realistic of what has been achieved. I appreciate what Gates is trying to do, but we need to introspect on how little we are doing to address these grave issues. And discussing the man and not the article itself is one of those key symptoms of our indifference and lethargy.
- icambron 13y agoPoints 2 and 3 both sound like steps forward to me. Also: > middle income counties has also seen concurrent high real inflation on the ground which is highly under measured. What does that actually mean? "Real" is an economic term that doesn't make sense in that context. And if inflation's not being measured properly, how do you know in which direction it's off? Or more generally - you seem to think inflation is higher than is being reported; why do you think that?
- astine 13y agoWhen people say that inflation is not being properly measured, what they're likely referring to is the fact that some policy makers use the CPI Less Food and Energy which means that some of the biggest expenses for the majority of people, food and energy, are sometimes ignored when discussing the effects inflation.
- icambron 13y agoThat's not a measurement problem, though; that's a what-should-our-policy-response-be problem. Food and energy prices are actually easier to measure and compare year-over-year. There are good arguments for (and some against) excluding them from your monetary policy targets, but I've never heard of anyone doing it when discussing human wellbeing. But either way, it's still being measured. The World Bank has inflation for middle income countries as 4.1% [1]. If you download their data sheet, you'll see that number is a GDP deflator, so no food/energy exclusion. That's not an ideal number, but it's not high either, and it's much lower than most previous years. They also have a CPI number, which is actually higher: 4.6%, but again not terrible. So my question still stands: does the GP think that number is wrong, and if so, why? [1] http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mic http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/mic
- onebaddude 13y ago>the fact that some policy makers use the CPI Less Food and Energy which means that some of the biggest expenses for the majority of people, food and energy, are sometimes ignored when discussing the effects inflation. That's hardly a "fact". It's nonsense that circulates around the internet. Look at the CPI reports yourself. Both figures are reported and public information, core and headline CPI, with the latter including the volatile food and fuel prices. In fact, you can look at the data and see precisely how much housing and fuel prices have risen or fallen, month to month.