Towards the end of poverty

Quote:

Nearly 1 billion people have been taken out of extreme poverty in 20 years. The world should aim to do the same again

....

Take a bow, capitalism
Nobody in the developed world comes remotely close to the poverty level that $1.25 a day represents. America’s poverty line is $63 a day for a family of four. In the richer parts of the emerging world $4 a day is the poverty barrier. But poverty’s scourge is fiercest below $1.25 (the average of the 15 poorest countries’ own poverty lines, measured in 2005 dollars and adjusted for differences in purchasing power): people below that level live lives that are poor, nasty, brutish and short. They lack not just education, health care, proper clothing and shelter—which most people in most of the world take for granted—but even enough food for physical and mental health. Raising people above that level of wretchedness is not a sufficient ambition for a prosperous planet, but it is a necessary one.

The world’s achievement in the field of poverty reduction is, by almost any measure, impressive. Although many of the original MDGs—such as cutting maternal mortality by three-quarters and child mortality by two-thirds—will not be met, the aim of halving global poverty between 1990 and 2015 was achieved five years early.

The MDGs may have helped marginally, by creating a yardstick for measuring progress, and by focusing minds on the evil of poverty. Most of the credit, however, must go to capitalism and free trade, for they enable economies to grow—and it was growth, principally, that has eased destitution.

Poverty rates started to collapse towards the end of the 20th century largely because developing-country growth accelerated, from an average annual rate of 4.3% in 1960-2000 to 6% in 2000-10. Around two-thirds of poverty reduction within a country comes from growth. Greater equality also helps, contributing the other third. A 1% increase in incomes in the most unequal countries produces a mere 0.6% reduction in poverty; in the most equal countries, it yields a 4.3% cut.

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.

......

Markets v misery

That is a lot of ifs. But making those things happen is not as difficult as cynics profess. The world now knows how to reduce poverty. A lot of targeted policies—basic social safety nets and cash-transfer schemes, such as Brazil’s Bolsa Família—help. So does binning policies like fuel subsidies to Indonesia’s middle class and China’s hukou household-registration system (see article) that boost inequality. But the biggest poverty-reduction measure of all is liberalising markets to let poor people get richer. That means freeing trade between countries (Africa is still cruelly punished by tariffs) and within them (China’s real great leap forward occurred because it allowed private business to grow). Both India and Africa are crowded with monopolies and restrictive practices.

So there you have it, globalization is reducing poverty in the world and why it's silly to look at the USA in a vacuum in making economic conclusions about capitalism and it's effects. If anything the problems in the USA regarding incomes and UE rates stem from more restrictive markets and crony capitalism AKA as govt. corruption.

You get 'em, adios! Show those strawmen who's boss!

Good article though. I assume the strawmen you are protesting are in adios's commentary and not the Economist's article.

What strawman?

I mentioned the greatness of free markets in a post the other day and got trolled in all-caps by the standard socialists in this forum. It was asserted that free markets are responsible for the worst human conditions in the world.

I'm sure that's exactly how it went down and everybody thinks exactly what you say they think.

Yeah I am not sure how many posts I can dig up in the other forum that only consider the USA worker. There was even one clown that questioned the relevance of considering the effect of globalization on other countries. The graph that was posted indicating productivity growth versus wage increases in the USA is pretty much focused entirety on the USA. There have been more than a few posts in the other forum decrying the lack of wage increases in the USA.

Exactly.

Sent from my SCH-I405 using 2+2 Forums

I this nugget of byzantine market apology so much.

Tell me adios, which part of Market Economix 101 says that most of the citizens of fully developed nations should forgo any benefits of growth in order to subsidize less developed nations, while a transnational elite rakes massive profit from both ends of the deal? Tell me how you shoehorn that into a narrative of rational actors seeking their own best interests.

What are you talking about when you say subsidizing? I can't follow the convo going on between the two of you.

Zikzak, this article must be quite the blow to you. In a mere 2 decades the greedy capitalists saw ~1/6 - 1/7 of the worlds population come out of extreme poverty. Did you think of a better way to do it in those 20 years? No, you spent those 20 years being furious.

You don't know what I'm talking about, but somehow you're sure you know exactly what makes me furious?

yeah, i read this forum a bit

i dont know what youre talking about because he's arguing against some posts in another thread, and then you're talking about subsidizing other countries

when he says the relevance of globalization on other countries, i guess he's talking about the benefits to them, when you say subsidize, im not sure what you're talking about, because poor people benefit from global trade without any subsidies, them making a product cheaper than an american isn't a form of subsidy

so, what are you talking about?

The standard capitalist rhetoric is about how everybody benefits from a growing economy. As has been shown repeatedly in the various inequality-related threads, this has been completely false by almost every metric for the past 40 years in the US.

Market apologists were sent scrambling for a new story, and they came through with a massive goal post shift about how it's OK that we're not getting any growth benefits because the developing world is, thanks to globalization.

In other words, you receive no direct returns from your contributions to economic growth. Your efforts subsidize the growth of others instead. You are a charity.

I suppose that's pretty noble, but it's probably not much of a motivator for most people.

The standard of living for people below the poverty line in the US is higher today than it's ever been.

Not everyone will benefit equally because we all make different choices -- not all of us work equally hard and/or strive for the same things.

What are you striving for Jim?

Early retirement.

Talk about strawman. Are you gainfully employed right now out of curiosity?

Sometimes!

C'mon adios, let 'er rip. You're unchained. See if you can land a solid personal attack.

[QUOTE=zikzak;38787732]The standard capitalist rhetoric is about how everybody benefits from a growing economy. [/b]

Your just making stuff up.

I don't even have to dig up any posts to show how you are only focusing on the USA.

Making stuff up.

You really do have no clue.

adios would you say the distribution of wealth now is better or worse than before?

I would say that economic growth is essential to funding the liberal agenda in the USA.

Define a good distribution of wealth

% wealth top 1%, 5%, 10% have of total wealth.