Scratchin Mamba

4y

This is from 1960 my guy, if you're in any way trying to compare those two regions' poverty levels at that time then you're showing your ignorance.

But either way, the decrease we see in global poverty almost completely depends on how low you set the poverty line, besides China (and some Latin American countries under socialist governments during the pink tide), poverty really hasn't decreased that much at all if you take a more realistic poverty line.

It's no coincidence that Western-dominated international institutions such as the World Bank basically only acknowledge the $2,- a day poverty line (which is ridiculously low).

TragedyBerlusconi

4y

this is relative poverty included

plus the $2 poverty line isnt bad for this reason, 2 dollars usd gets you further in developing countries, it's the equivalent in domestic currency which is counted

we are talking about absolute poverty, which is set at a level at which clothing, housing, sanitation etc arent accessible

Relative poverty is different, relative poverty is when you have less yes, but not as bad as absolute at all, we care more about the drop in absolte poverty and once that occurs, we work on relative

thank you for engaging me without hurling insults tho, ultimately falls in poverty are a win for me

Scratchin Mamba

4y

This is not relative poverty what are you talking about? This is a $7.40 poverty line. Poverty lines are by definition not about relative poverty.

And $2,- a day does not give people access to basic needs.

Quoting Jason Hickel: "Using the $1.90 line shows that only 700 million people live in poverty. But note that the UN’s FAO says that 815 million people do not have enough calories to sustain even “minimal” human activity. 1.5 billion are food insecure, and do not have enough calories to sustain “normal” human activity. And 2.1 billion suffer from malnutrition. How can there be fewer poor people than hungry and malnourished people? If $1.90 is inadequate to achieve basic nutrition and sustain normal human activity, then it’s too low – period. It’s time for you and Gates to stop using it. Lifting people above this line doesn’t mean lifting them out of poverty, “extreme” or otherwise.

Remember: $1.90 is the equivalent of what that amount of money could buy in the US in 2011. The economist David Woodward once calculated that to live at this level (in an earlier base year) would be like 35 people trying to survive in Britain “on a single minimum wage, with no benefits of any kind, no gifts, borrowing, scavenging, begging or savings to draw on (since these are all included as ‘income’ in poverty calculations).” That goes beyond any definition of “extreme”. It is patently absurd. It is an insult to humanity."

TragedyBerlusconi

4y

let us look at other poverty lines then

https://ourworldindata.org/no-matter-what-global-poverty-

the reduction in poverty is occuring

I am happy to admit africa is having much more trouble due to the legacy of colonialism and other problems related to environment (no point capping here)
source shows more than a third of the global pop. live above 10 dollars a day, thats crazy

TragedyBerlusconi

4y

let us look at other poverty lines then

https://ourworldindata.org/no-matter-what-global-poverty-

the reduction in poverty is occuring

I am happy to admit africa is having much more trouble due to the legacy of colonialism and other problems related to environment (no point capping here)
source shows more than a third of the global pop. live above 10 dollars a day, thats crazy

Scratchin Mamba

4y

And like I showed you earlier, with higher poverty lines, there isn't much of a decrease at all if you take away the reduction that took place in China.

Scratchin Mamba

4y

And poverty in Africa has absolutely nothing to do with the environment, that's a literal white supremacist trope which originated from the colonial powers' need to justify their exploitation of Africa.

TragedyBerlusconi

4y

even if you adjust for china, there has still been a marked drop.

India has also seen big reduction despite not being as interventionist as china

Also the bulk of the reduction in chinese poverty is because they opened up their economy,, and have more people anyway so more potential for poverty to drop

Scratchin Mamba

4y

The drop is minimal. And it becomes totally meaningless when you contextualize it with the world's ability to provide the people living in poverty with the means to attain their basic needs and the growth of relative poverty, which is at least as important as absolute poverty, and also contributes to decreasing absolute poverty.

And the Chinese population is pretty comical, since it's about the percentage of people living in poverty.

Scratchin Mamba

4y

This is not relative poverty what are you talking about? This is a $7.40 poverty line. Poverty lines are by definition not about relative poverty.

And $2,- a day does not give people access to basic needs.

Quoting Jason Hickel: "Using the $1.90 line shows that only 700 million people live in poverty. But note that the UN’s FAO says that 815 million people do not have enough calories to sustain even “minimal” human activity. 1.5 billion are food insecure, and do not have enough calories to sustain “normal” human activity. And 2.1 billion suffer from malnutrition. How can there be fewer poor people than hungry and malnourished people? If $1.90 is inadequate to achieve basic nutrition and sustain normal human activity, then it’s too low – period. It’s time for you and Gates to stop using it. Lifting people above this line doesn’t mean lifting them out of poverty, “extreme” or otherwise.

Remember: $1.90 is the equivalent of what that amount of money could buy in the US in 2011. The economist David Woodward once calculated that to live at this level (in an earlier base year) would be like 35 people trying to survive in Britain “on a single minimum wage, with no benefits of any kind, no gifts, borrowing, scavenging, begging or savings to draw on (since these are all included as ‘income’ in poverty calculations).” That goes beyond any definition of “extreme”. It is patently absurd. It is an insult to humanity."

TragedyBerlusconi

4y

relative poverty is also something to minimise yes, but no i disagree there, absolute poverty is far worse than relative because it can kill

in most developed nation states with welfare states the majority of people were lifted from absolute to relative and then went up

absolute poverty falling is a win even if relative increases,, neither are good dont get me wrong but it is an improvement

Scratchin Mamba

4y

The reason that relative poverty is just as important is because it shows how many resources are available to reduce the absolute poverty. The increase in relative poverty shows that the only thing that is in the way is the political unwillingness to redistribute wealth.

And the way that rich countries developed is being blocked by Western-dominated international institutions like the World Bank & IMF. Developed nations are essentially kicking away the ladder after reaching the desired destination.

TragedyBerlusconi

4y

agree with first paragraph, disagree with second paragraph

ill have to get more data together but my perspective is and always was allow absolute poverty to fall due to capital moving in, once it is established develop welfare states- this is what happened to most developed nations

i'd need to see data and substantive evidence for your second claim- my view is we can accelerate the fall in relative and absolute if we remove our tariffs and trade protections and compete FAIRLY

to me the real crime is the tariffs we use to protect our prodcuers from fairly competing with the rest of the world. we should be buying more food from africa which would be great for their economies but the eu chooses to not be fair

Scratchin Mamba

4y

That's not true because in developed nations there was no capital moving in, the whole existence of capital originated from there in the first place lol....

Scratchin Mamba

4y

That's not true because in developed nations there was no capital moving in, the whole existence of capital originated from there in the first place lol....

pimpin

4y

That's why socialism >>>>>>>>

Ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo ooo

Ahora SI, Ahora Si 7 8 años despues, ahora si con el rumbo bien claro, ahora si con el conocimiento mas profundo de nuestras realidades, ahora si con una experiencia que se va sumando a la pasion y a la voluntad, AHORA SI CON RUMBO HACIA EL SOCIALISMO, hacia una democracia profunda y plena.

LOS QUE QUIERAN PATRIA VENGAN CONMIGO!!!!!!

ASI SI, AHORA SI, AHORA VAMOS POR EL SI

AHORA VAMOS POR EL SI
SOCIALISMO INCLUSION
SOLIDARIA INVOCACION
SACRIFICIO INTEGRACION

REFORMA Y REVOLUCION
SON UNA MISMA CUESTION
COMO EL PUEBLO Y EL AMOR
INVENCIBLE VOZ DE DIOS

ASI SI, AHORA SI, AHORA VAMOS POR EL SI

LOS QUE QUIERAN PATRIA VENGAN CONMIGO!
A COMENZADO A CAMBIAR! Y TIENE QUE SEGUIR CAMBIANDO, EL PODER ES DEL PUEBLO, EL PODER ES DE LA NACION NO DE LOS OLIGARCAS

AHORA DECIMOS SI, SI , SI, SI
SI, SI, SI, LA HORA DE LOS PUEBLOS
SI, SI, SI, LA HORA DE LOS POBRES
SI, SI SI, DE HOMBRES Y MUJERES
SI, SI, SI, DE LOS TRABAJADORES

CAMPESINOS, TRANSPORTISTAS, MILITARES Y MILICIAS
POLICIAS Y BOMBEROS, COMERCIANTES, MISIONEROS
PETROLEROS, PETROQUIMICOS, CIENTIFICOS Y OBREROS
ENFERMERAS Y DOCTORES, SEMBRADORES, PESCADORES
PROFESORES Y ESTUDIANTES, BARRENDEROS, NAVEGANTES
PELUQUEROS, CARPINTEROS, AFROS, INDIOS, VIGILANTES
SACERDOTES, PERIODISTAS, ZAPATEROS, LOS ARTISTAS
BATALLONES, BRIGADISTAS, VENGAN COOPERATIVISTAS

SI, SI, SI, LA HORA DE LOS PUEBLOS
SI, SI, SI, LA HORA DE LOS POBRES
SI, SI SI, DE HOMBRES Y MUJERES
SI, SI, SI, DE LOS TRABAJADORES
DIVERSIDAD SIN MENOSPRECIO. SI

LOS ESTUDIANTES, LAS MUJERES, LOS TRABAJADORES, LOS INDIGENAS, LOS MILITARES, LOS SOLDADOS, LOS COMBATIENTES, SIIIIII
ASI SI, AHORA SI, AHORA VAMOS POR EL SI

NOCTA_VAMP

4y

Capilalism = exploiting ppl

Red Stone Mask

4y

Northern countries never colonized (Norwage for example)
I should've put a '','' between them

addja

4y

You're wrong.

Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia tore Sápmi apart.

Colonization and Assimilation started in the 1500's, but from the mid 1800's Norway had an official policy to eradicate the Sami culture and language. This ended in 1965.

It was illegal to speak Sami, Sami children were taken from their families and put in boarding schools, some were forcibly sterilized and lobotomized, rebels were killed and we were not allowed to own or buy land, unless we changed to Norwegiaen names and spoke Nowegiaen.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S%C3%A1mi_history#Swedish_advances_into_S%C3%A1pmi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norwegianization

My grandparents lived through this hell and were ashamed of their own ethnicity, there is still alot of trauma and hate towards the Norwegiaen state in the Sami areas. Racism towards us is still alive and well.

My county has the worst school results in Norway, we have the most d*** abuse, violence and sexual assault in Norway per capita too. Our infrastructure is one of the most neglected in Norway. I believe this is a result of the oppression our people went through.

TragedyBerlusconi

4y

This is awful and evil but different to the colonial empires most people in the thread refer to.

You are right though completely, they are wrong for that

addja

4y

yeah u right it wasn't motivated by stealing resources and forcing people to slavery my bad