http://www.economist.com/news/leade...uld-aim?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/pe/towardsendofpoverty Remarkable. Something the world should be very proud of. And yes, capitalism deserves the lions share of the credit.
True enough. And yet it is probably important to keep in mind just how tragically low that bar actually is, and how much harder the next billion are likely to be to move up...
Most of the gain has been made in China which is state-run capitalism. I guess we can thank them for all the iCrap they make for us and they can thank us for helping them get millions out of poverty. It's great on a human level, but having come from the last century in a once ascendant America, I'm not sure how comfortable I am with the "red Chinese" starting to run things.
Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the $1.25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it. When growth makes them even slightly better off, it hauls them over the line. With fewer people just below the official misery limit, it will be more difficult to push large numbers over it.
I'm pretty sure it is: China (which has never shown any interest in MDGs) is responsible for three-quarters of the achievement. Its economy has been growing so fast that, even though inequality is rising fast, extreme poverty is disappearing. China pulled 680m people out of misery in 1981-2010, and reduced its extreme-poverty rate from 84% in 1980 to 10% now. That is one reason why (as the briefing explains) it will be harder to take a billion more people out of extreme poverty in the next 20 years than it was to take almost a billion out in the past 20. Poorer governance in India and Africa, the next two targets, means that China’s experience is unlikely to be swiftly replicated there. Another reason is that the bare achievement of pulling people over the $1.25-a-day line has been relatively easy in the past few years because so many people were just below it. When growth makes them even slightly better off, it hauls them over the line. With fewer people just below the official misery limit, it will be more difficult to push large numbers over it.
??? Does this article even take in consideration inflation? 1.25 USD in 1990 is a lot different than today
I take all of these studies' numbers with a grain of salt. Some Sunday yak-fest was talking about the horror of our science & math scores (17th I believe) and then you see we're up against Finland, Ireland, Faroe Islands, etc. and realize our school-age population alone is far larger than these countries' entire populations. We could do better, but it's an exaggeration to say we're in some kind of educational crisis.
But it is not only the poor that are doing better, also in net numbers the worlds moddle class is growing. (Even if stagnant in first world countries). http://www.reuters.com/middle-class-infographic by 2030 the world population will be between 9 and 10 billion. Also more trade is needed in Africa (sub Sahara) and obviously more equality.
You act as if you are posting something that is rather unknown & will cause debate. Lefties have always been in admiration of the material successes of Capitalism.
yes, but Karl also predicted that as Capitalism advances, wealth would be increasingly concentrated in the hands of fewer and fewer people. which could be seen as running contrary to the stats initially presented.
or the fact that once the Jews conquered hollywood and banking, they would conspire with Spetsnaz and set their sights on world conquest.
The article does say that while more and more are living on at least $1.26 a day, the wealth gap is ever-increasing. Do we also pat ourselves on the back for that?
I didn't read the article, but I was wondering about that. that's why I said, and bolded "could." because while it's possible that everyone is getting richer (assuming the $1.26 has been adjusted for inflation), the rich might be getting much richer and a lot faster, still leaving everyone else in relative poverty. not to be a downer or anything...
Obviously China was uniquely positioned to take advantage of globalization during the last two/three decades. But they are not the only ones who benefited greatly. In the past 30 years, Latin America experienced a significant decline in poverty. Everybody talks about Brazil, and like China they stand out, because of size and also because they were better positioned to benefit, but even in the poorest countries -like Paraguay and Bolivia- there was a significant improvement. There is still a long way to go, though.
At least in Latin America, there's been a decrease in inequality. Not because the rich didn't get richer, but because the poorest of the poorest had the most significant improvement, in relative terms.