-
1
11/03/09 | Report as spam
Somebody is either lying, or a mathematical moron
Assuming the article is correctly reporting the statement, "The corresponding total number of poor has fallen from 403 million in 1970 to 152 million in 2006."
Then how do they reconcile the numbers posted at http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html, 3 Nov 09, and supported by U.N. statistics?
"In 2005, almost 1.4 billion people lived below the international poverty line, earning less than $1.25 per day."
1.4 billion is an entire magnitude of difference from 152 million.
"As a result, 947 million people in the developing world are undernourished."
Again, 947 million is 6 times more than 152 million.
I'd have to say that the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) working paper from Maxim Pinkovskiy and Xavier Sala-i-Martin is a result of criminally unethical research and reporting methodology. Income distribution is NOT an indication of poverty.
-
2
11/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
Dr. Zinj,
Is it possible the statistics are supported by the U.N. because they have a vested interest in showing the under-developed world as destitute for the purposes of coercing huge amounts of money and resources from the developed world - especially the U.S.? Copenhagen..? Climate Change Agreement ..? Any of that ring a bell?
Have you read the actual study? Do you understand the methodology used?
Expanding economies ARE the way to reduce poverty. More opportunities through capitalization ARE the way to allow people to pull themselves up out of poverty.
Income redistribution however, will make us all poorer.
-
3
11/03/09 | Report as spam
Freedom, political stability, property rights and capitalism will do that.
Conversely, little productive happens in places where there is not
freedom freedom, little political stability, zero property rights.
-
4
11/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
Maxim Pinkovskiy and Xavier Sala-i-Martin report "Our estimates of the global poverty count in 2006 are much smaller than found by other researchers."
and Dr Zinj concludes they are liars or morons. Surely a third possiblity is that they have uncovered inaccuracies in the satndard measuring methods. It wouldn't be the first time this has happened. At least read the paper.
-
5
11/03/09 | Report as spam
Where are USA, wealthier nations on the poverty chart?
I was taught that wealth is finite; when wealth goes up in some areas
it MUST go down in other areas. I would like to see USA and other
"rich" countries' poverty trends on this chart. I am curious if their
poverty levels are increasing.
-
6
11/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
Helmut-
I don't know who taught you that, but whoever it was, he simply didn't understand the simple phrase "wealth creation".
The old political phrase, "a rising tide lifts all boats", though out of fashion today, was not completely empty rhetoric: the kernel of truth to it was that "wealth creation" really does exist. It is based on the expansion of efficient uses of land, labor and capital.
This expansion was interrupted only temporarily by the recent crash of financial markets.
-
7
11/03/09 | Report as spam
Found it... wiki link
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Interestingly, Wiki shows USA's poverty level _increasing_ between 1970
and today.
I believe this does support the notion that wealth is finite, and for
poor countries to increase their standard of living, wealthy nations
must decrease, at least partially.
-
8
11/03/09 | Report as spam
Dave has fallen for the "zero sum game" theory of the progressives
Wealth is not finite. We create it every day when we go to work and
produce more than we consume. The only thing that is truly finite is
the states ability to extract it from the productive, which is what
the progressives find most frustrating.
As for poverty in the US, consider the following from the US Census
Bureau (2000 data):
Forty-six percent of all "poor" households own their own homes. The
average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau
is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a
porch or patio.
76% of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, in 1970
only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air
conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-
thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average
individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities
throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in
foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own
two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over
half own two or more color televisions. 25% own a large screen TV.
(This is a 2000 statistic; I'm certain that it's at least 100% higher
now)
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable
or satellite TV reception.
89% own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third
have an automatic dishwasher.
25% have a computer
A third of ?poor? households have both cell and land-line telephones.
A third also telephone answering machines.
Average "poor" person in US has higher standard of living than the
average citizen in Europe.
"Poverty" is relative, and by global standards, the US have very
little of it.
-
9
11/03/09 | Report as spam
I did not
attempt to compare:
poverty-definition-1 from country-1
against
poverty-definition-2 from country-2
That is a totally separate discussion. Back to the original
discussion...
Fact: USA's poverty level has increased as poorer countries' poverty
level has decreased.
If you like, I would entertain arguments disproving this fact, and
please post some numbers - I accept wiki links as fairly reliable.
If this fact is not contested, then it really shows a strong
argument _for_ the theory that world-wide-wealth is finite.
-
10
11/03/09 | Report as spam
But you did say...
...that wealth in one place means poverty somewhere else. And I
dispute your idea that poverty in the US has increased. You can argue
that those who are classified as "wealthy" have become more so at a
rate greater than the "poor" have become less-so. But the only way you
can argue that the "poor" have become more so is by moving the bar of
what is considered "poor" higher.
-
11
11/03/09 | Report as spam
very sorry to quibble
but I did not say "that wealth in one place means poverty somewhere
else" as you say.
What I meant to say is: similar to the laws of thermodynamics, where
there is always a conservation of mass/energy, so to is there
conservation of wealth in a global context.
According to the chart shown in the above article, we can see the
poverty level for poor countries declining between 1970 and today.
Now, turn your attention to the wiki link I posted; it clearly shows
the poverty level in USA to be increasing between 1970 and today.
This is not "my idea". This is a fact based on statistics.
I have not seen any data to conflict with the wiki graph, or the
fact that at least one wealthy nation has its poverty level increase
coincidentally with the decline of poverty in poorer nations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States
Not to make any sweeping claims like my opponents, but if this fact
remains uncontested, then I believe this is evidence that supports
the theory of finite wealth, in a global context. Ergo, for one
country to increase its standard of living, others must decrease
theirs.
-
12
11/03/09 | Report as spam
Unforntately, economics is not the least bit like physics...
...and the laws of thermodynamics do not apply.
For example, if I choose not to work today and thus do not get paid,
does that mean that somewhere else in the economy someone else gets
richer? Of course not. In fact, if I don't work today, everyone is
worse off; I, because I will not have made any money, and the economy
as a whole which will be deprived of my output.
Poverty statistics: You clearly did not get the point of my previous
post. The problem with poverty statistics is that they are
subjective. We tend to gauge poverty based on "wealth" relative to
someone else.
For example, the other day I was in line at the supermarket behind
someone using food stamps, (supposedly a sign of poverty) who was
using a late model cell phone. 20 years ago, a cell phone was
something that cost thousands of dollars to purchase, and almost as
much just to use. Today, the government actually gives them away.
This is an example of how the standard of living of even poor people
is vastly improved over that of a single generation.
Also, the government's methodology of measuring poverty is suspect;
more or less engineered to justify the need for more government
programs. Due to cycles in my business, there have been years where
I myself could statistically qualify as being below the poverty
level, even though that is really not the case.
This is a great country to be "poor" in.
-
13
11/03/09 | Report as spam
I got your post.
I am not talking about comparing the definition of poverty between 2 or
more countries, so it is not relevant to my point.
What is relevant to my point, is the poverty level in USA is
increasing, possibly more wealthy countries as well. I await any
contradictory evidence, should any exist.
-
14
11/03/09 | Report as spam
If I understand you,
your main point seems to revolve around your mistrust of the
definition of poverty; possibly that it does not even exist in
wealthy nations.
I won't address this point, you are entitled to your opinion.
However definitions _do_ exist, and I trust them, as do many others.
Given all that, the data I see shows USA's poverty increasing,
coinciding with poor nation's decrease in poverty, nearly lock-step
since 1970.
You may mistrust statistics, or the means by which they are
determined, but this shows me clearly that there indeed is finite
wealth in the world, as evidenced by above referenced data.
-
15
11/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
------------
I await any contradictory evidence, should any exist.
------------
Maybe you should re-read the graph. While the total number in poverty has increased (according to the US Census - not that it is biased at all LOL), the poverty rate as a percentage of population has remained fairly constant. If you also pay attention closely enough, the percentage decreased in the 80's, rose for a bit in the 90's and then began decreasing again.
Rex (at) smartergeek (dot) com
(not making an account)
-
16
11/03/09 | Report as spam
OK fine
Yes I admit I may not have read the wiki graph correctly. That
probably qualifies as contradictory evidence..? My bad!
Still going back to my original post, I would like to see wealthy
nations on the graph, so to better compare apples-apples, if such a
thing is possible in macro-economics.
Looks like the finite-wealth theory remains unsupported by facts for
now if indeed USA poverty level remained level. However this discounts
other wealthy nations... I should probe into this further.
-
17
11/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
The Pinkovskiy/Sala-i-Martin paper apparently defines poverty as $1 per day annual income or less, if the graphic at the top of the web page is to be believed. This is not a reasonable definition of poverty because it does not take into account the differences in cost of living across the world. I'm too lazy to do any research for the moment, but I'd bet there are more than 152M people in both China & India that live in poverty - using a definition of poverty that is acceptable to the average American.
-
18
11/04/09 | Report as spam
hoodedswan is correct
This study used a totally arbitrary definition of poverty that doesn't really correlate with people's material well-being. Their results could reflect nothing more than inflation.
In any case, it's old news now; the world economy suffered a drastic downturn in 2008, and has not yet recovered. Poverty is certainly more widespread today than it was in 2006.
-
19
11/04/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
Helmut,
If wealth is constant, as you maintain, then humanity would have never risen above the Stone Age. In fact, it would have never made it to the Stone Age. Just how did that happen if your theory is true?
Materials and energy are indeed ultimately finite. But much wealth can be gained in how it is rearranged. A semiconductor starts out as mostly just a pile of sand, but a vast infrastructure transforms it into an incredibly useful product because we can now manipulate matter at the nanometer level. The same is true for chemicals and drugs. The gigawatts of electricity from a power plant would be totally useless except for the fact that we have thousands if not millions of novel ways of using it, often a milliwatt at a time.
-
20
11/06/09 | Report as spam
zackers
I'm not sure I qualify as "maintaining" the argument that wealth is
finite; I am no macro economist. However, this theory seems to make
sense to me. I do see USA's wealth/global value eroding in the form
of wealth polarization, dollar devaluation, and lack of economic
growth. This was predicted 20 years ago, and was to be attributed
to a declination of standard of living in USA in order to balance an
increase in the standard of living in "poorer" countries. Certainly
the 2 predictions came true, but it can certainly be argued as to
"why."
I think we can see an example of this in the EU today in the form of
European public reluctance to enlist poorer European nations into
the EU.
I completely understand your point of wealth creation, between the
stone age and today. However, the reason the theory makes sense to
me is because the amount of wealth that "we" are capable of creating
will achieve a "steady state" or a maximum ceiling.
If we have not achieved this ceiling yet, then so be it, but I
believe a ceiling exists in the form of finite wealth. Either we
have already hit it, or it has already been hit.
-
21
11/10/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
I'm puzzled by the figures quoted.
In 1970 the population of Africa was about 360million. If the poverty rate was then 39.9%, that's about 143.6 million people.
In 2006 the population of Africa was about 950million. If the poverty rate was then 31.8%, that's about 302.1 million people.
This represents an increase of 110% in the number of Africans living in poverty in 2006 compared with 1970.
How can the study claim the total number living in poverty has dropped to 152million in 2006 when the number in Africa alone is almost double that?
I don't understand????
-
22
11/12/09 | Report as spam
I think
someone suggested the graph represents a drop in the proportion of
people living in poverty per region, not the total number of people.
Since the populations are always increasing, this seems to make sense,
but I did not research the study.
-
23
11/17/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
This study does nothing for the people who are starving and living in slums, whether they are millions, billions or hundreds of thousands we should not let anyone anywhere not be able to buy food or go to the dentist. I am not "in poverty" but I cannot afford to go to the dentist and spend two weeks pay to sit in his chair for half an hour. Wealth is very finite when you have none.
-
24
11/17/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
While there have been some gains in wealth in China and more recently in India that could be attributed to the global economy, the division between rich and poor has never been higher than today, with more poor people on the planet today than ever before. Dr. Zinj is absolutely correct, and anyone who has ever been to the septic fringe of cities around the world, from Mexico City to Quezon City to Tegucigalpa to Nairobi, would know for themselves that the figures in this article are wildly inaccurate.
The worst, however, is still to come, as the ravages of what 7 billion people and unconstrained industrialization have done to the environment. Global warming, peak oil, collapse of fisheries, erosion of topsoil, disappearing water tables, and the catastrophic and systematic extinction of plants and animals, combined do not paint a rosy picture for our future.
Those interested, I highly recommend reading Lester Brown's book "Plan B" (http://www.earth-policy.org/) about what we need to be doing to move to a humane and sustainable future. And if the words "peak oil" are new to you, read Richard Heinberg (http://www.richardheinberg.com/Home.html).
Finally, if you realize that the global economy is predicated on the Earth's ability to provide us with the stuff (ore, wood, oil, etc.) to provide the goods for that economy, then you'll realize that you can't have sustained exponential economic growth on a finite planet. At some point you'll reach the limits to that growth and begin undermining the support system that growth requires. The decline in our fellow species, as well as the other indicators mentioned above, is telling us that we've already exceeded that limit. As unpopular as it is to say, what we desperately need is a consciously chosen contraction in both human numbers (birth control) and our economy (impact on Earth's natural systems).
Wish us well.
-
25
11/17/09 | Report as spam
wealth can be created and destroyed
As a general rule, wealth increases. The exceptions are in economic
disasters (after a bout of government-produced inflation, or laws and
regulations which render job markets dysfunctional), and natural disasters
(fire, flood, disease, pestilence, drought), which can sometimes combine to
depress wealth creation and maintenance.
The difference between us and "cave-men" is our knowledge. We've been
accumulating knowledge. A big chunk of that knowledge is how to make
valued uses of formerly useless stuff. The "cave-men" had the same stuff
but it was valueless to them.
OTOH, taking a day off, or working 6 hours a day instead of 16, can
increase your net wealth for the week. After so many hours, productivity
per unit of time drops steeply. OTOH, a break, a shower or other bit of
noodling time, can spur creativity.
US poverty levels are adjusted, re-normed, so that they tend to run
between 10% and 18%.
Yes, the USA's and Europe's wealth is being intentionally drained by the
leftists. Read the UN's climate change propaganda. The USA economy has
been partially mangled since at least 1987, and in shallow depression
since at least 2000.
Let the over-breeding end and the economies grow.
-
26
11/17/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
If Africa has 31% poverty now and there are 900 million people in Africa there are 279 million poor in Africa. Why is total world poverty reported as only 152 million?
-
27
11/19/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
When I saw the following words in the article it became evident that this is a bunch of leftist propaganda: quote " globalization, market-based reforms, liberalization"....
The United States and Western European consumer has been the major source of lifting Asia out of poverty along with their backing off of "liberal" leftist centralized programs that kept people in poverty.
I see no mention of Democracy... and the numbers simply do not add up. 38 million Americans are on food stamps, over 10% of the population.
As the wealth is transferred from the West to the East and the manufacturing and hi-tech industries go with the wealth, the West will see a rise in poverty. In the US the influx of millions of 3rd world people who have poor sanitation and lots of procreative ambitions are creating a sub-culture in this country of dirt poor.
-
28
11/19/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
How unlike minds think alike. Maybe be are both paranoid. For the very reasons bkn2000 saw this as "liberal" leftest propaganda I saw it as right wing extremest propaganda. That is The rich get richer, the poor get poorer but we can hide the fact and keep doing what we are doing. 
-
29
11/20/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
Us "Lefties" know that poverty is increasing!
Most of this so called increased wealth is imaginary. Look at the stock market, a company could be "worth" $200/share one day and only "worth" $50/share the next, even if there have been no disasters (a factory fire for example).
Look at 9/11, no factories were destroyed (only 2 or 3 skyscrapers) and yet the stock market plummeted.
lehnerus2000
-
30
11/20/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
Good point sheehan msg 28..... actually, i was thinking exactly what you said on the first take.... I was thinking about Soviet and Maoist / Castro type systems which use "flat" society ideas.
They should ban the Nobel Prize for Economics. This is embarrassing. The economists have been screwing with our economy for 40 years now and look what we got: $12 trillion in debt, 60% decrease in wealth of the middle class in the last 12 months, 27 million people out of work (or working less hours), .
We need to create 100,000 new jobs every month just to keep up with population increases. This is going to be a very long recession for workers and more and more people will fall below the poverty level.
-
31
12/02/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
To bkn2000-
Newflash: it was the bankers, NOT the Econ Nobel Prize Laureates, who engineered the market crash.
These bankers never knew as much as the econ laureates and never listened to them.
-
32
12/03/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
As far as I can understand this study does not take into account that the percentage of people who relied on subsistence agriculture and did not need much money to live well was much larger in 1970 than today. Now an enormous larger part of population in many countries needs much more money to exist above the poverty level. If this is so the study is totally biased.
Terje Valen
-
33
12/07/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
Read for yourself before citing an excerpt as support of your favorite ideological catechism.
In the Wiki article that @Helmut cites, neither text nor charts indicate poverty increased in the United States. And except for 1970-1980, the rates now are equal to, or lower than, the rates at any time in the last 40 years. [Here's what made the 70's so much less impoverished: Econometrists changed the definition of poverty and the targets of statistical analysis.]
So much for a decrease proving that if wealth rises one place, it must decline elsewhere. BTW the fact of a decrease [or increase] can't prove any particular cause. To discover the living room under water and a hole in the ceiling doesn't prove the water came from it. [That hole might have been blasted by the geyser that flooded the room.] In the case of poverty, perhaps the cause was a great, GDP-sucking vortex in Camden, NJ, rather than an increase in the amount of rice afforded by a beggar turned factory worker.
Finally, with apologies @Dr Zinj, income distribution can be an indication of poverty if you define it so. Thus it's likely that the NBER researchers use the income-distribution definition since their concern is relative poverty rather than absolute measure, the 2 common gauges of poverty.*
The Wiki article distinguishes absolute poverty [a person's ability to purchase a defined measure of goods] from relative poverty [your income compared to the national average]. So, if your income goes up by 20% over 40 years and the people wealthier than you increase their wealth by 50%, then the number of people in relative poverty has increased, even though absolute poverty decreased because everyone got richer and you can finally afford that entire basket of goods.
In other words, if open trade, free enterprise, and technology have made the people of everywhere but Africa less poor, but have also put more wealth into the hands of fewer people, then both the right and the left can decry the reduction of poverty as support for whatever ideological catechism. A little fun with percentages tells us that if you have 2 potatoes this year, that's a 100% increase over the 1 potato you had last year. And if last year I had 500 ingots stored in each of my 4 palaces and this year I've filled the bunkers of 8 in all, my wealth has increased by only 50%. Cheeky little devil.
Next, taking no exception to Mr. Helmut's proofing rule leads us to conclude that since Africa has the least reduction in poverty and also a high incidences of war, disease, drought, famine, then we should pursue franchising the Apocalyptic Riding Academy rather than the blight that we've apparently fostered on the rest of the world.
__________
*http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/338/apr02_1/a3167 Methods that use distributional assumptions are called parametric methods, because...the distribution estimated for the data is assumed to be consistent and homogeneous: no lumps in your batter and the blueberries are thoroughly mixed. Billionaires are either common or non-existent and all income is from production or all from services.
-
34
12/08/09 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
The text:
and this year I've filled the bunkers of in all, my wealth has increased by only 50%.
should read
and this year I've filled the bunkers of 6 in all, my wealth has increased by only 50%.
-
35
01/06/10 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
JohnMcGrew@...
11/03/09 | Report as spam
Dave has fallen for the "zero sum game" theory of the progressives
Wealth is not finite. We create it every day when we go to work and
produce more than we consume. The only thing that is truly finite is
the states ability to extract it from the productive, which is what
the progressives find most frustrating.
1stDan: America consumes more than it produces. We appear to be productive because just like the USSR before its fall we have built an Empire of colonized satelittes that we steal raw goods and labor from at production cost only and subsistance pay for labor. And, like the USSR we are doomed to failure as the Empire collapses. Venzuela was the first sign. We staged two coup attempts against a Democratically elected head of state because he has made it a priority to let that nations oil benifit the entire population instead of a few corrupt elite friends of a dictator we control. We pulled the democratically elected leader of Haiti out because he was instituting a minimum wage. We support he most Fundamentalist govt in the mideast, Saudi Arabia, where bin Laden, al queada, the Taliban are all funded and trained to keep oil prices at the level that best supports our economy. We are destroying Mexico with the 'War on Drugs' and cheap and available firearms so we get their labor at de-basement prices.
Americans produce knowlege and oversized homes that no one else in the world could afford to heat and cool. We haven't produce any significant durable goods in comparison to comsumption in many years. Our wealth is a pipe dream propped up by a slightly benevolent oglicarchy that uses the Federal Reserve to keep wealth and the resulting power moving into an ever smaller percentage of the population. And they are rapidly loosing their benevolence as they become more powereful and their is less to steal. They've got it all.
-
36
02/04/10 | Report as spam
RE: Study: world poverty rates plummeted 80% since 1970
"If wealth is constant, as you maintain, then humanity would have never risen above the Stone Age. In fact, it would have never made it to the Stone Age. Just how did that happen if your theory is true?"
This argument is based on the assumption that only human wealth counts. In the stone age, most of the world's wealth was still in the earth. Over time, humans have learned to extract the earth's wealth and convert it to wealth that is recognized in our modern world.
I think no one would argue that the earth's wealth is being depleted - even as human wealth increases. As such, a philosophical argument for finite wealth could be put forth. And once the earth's wealth has been fully exploited and converted, human wealth will move about primarily through exploitation of one group by another.
If you say that when we run out of the earth's wealth, then we will find more - I would argue that is not creating wealth, but that it was there all along and the finite wealth theory remains intact.
Just a thought...
