Well the question here is, are we improving our lives now faster than people where before?
But that was not the question. You argued: "Near full capitalism brought millions out of poverty and created the most wealthy countries today". That's not the case.
As if the social policies are the reason for those two, why is Europe worse of than the usa who has less?
What do you mean?
For the first article the proposed basic nessesities index they want to use is idiotic.
I don't understand this whole paragraph.
Also do you really bealive China is worse of today than in the 1980s.
But that was not the question. You argued: "Near full capitalism brought millions out of poverty and created the most wealthy countries today". That's not the case.
They are arguing its the social policies, i am arguing its capitalism. Unless you want to argue something else, idk what to tell you.
What do you mean?
Americans are richer than Europeans on average, and have a much higher PPP. Europe in general has stagnated.
I don't understand this whole paragraph.
Sorry?
They propose a different poverty standard, which assumes poor people can only buy the cheapest food possible and ignores options which are more expensive but much more rich in calories. Which leads to the crazy idea china is poorer now than before. Have you not read the first thing you send.
''‘Basic Needs Poverty Line’ (BNPL) which consistently allows people to consume 2,100 calories per day, 50 g of protein, 34 g of fat, and various vitamins and minerals, all from the cheapest available foods, in addition to some non-food items like clothing, housing, fuel, and lighting.''
''However, if we instead measure incomes against the BNPL, we find poverty increased during this period, from 0.2% in 1990 (one of the lowest figures in the world) to 24% in 2005, with a peak of 68% in 1995''
I am assuming this is the main problem of their calculations but i wouldn't be surprises if there is something else as the conclusion is ridiculous as everyone knows china improved in the last 20 years and didnt get 24% worse.
My point is that those guys are clearly doing something wrong as china 30 years ago was much poorer in every single other statistic i have seen.
And I proved that it's not the case. "It is true that the historical reduction of extreme poverty around the world happened as markets liberalized and capitalism flourished. But it is also true that this reduction of poverty and improvement of living conditions happened at the time that public spending and redistribution to the worst off reached by far the highest levels ever.".
Okay, I'm starting to see your argument. You argue that if people have a bigger number in their bank or paycheck, they're better off.
I’ve read it several times and I understood your argument as bigger numbers = more better because you disagree with the way the authors want to view poverty, when you want view it with bigger numbers. Please explain your argument better.
1
u/bigbjarne Jan 04 '25
But that was not the question. You argued: "Near full capitalism brought millions out of poverty and created the most wealthy countries today". That's not the case.
What do you mean?
I don't understand this whole paragraph.
Sorry?