The World Marks 100th Anniversary of the End of WWI

Jan 2010
4,274
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#71
I have. Tho not based on hard figures.

Actually, living with more than 1.9 $/day is mostly irrelevant. It is more relevant what You can do with 1.9 $/day, and it's fundamental what one expects from life: that I don't see any longer my kids literally dying of malnutrition but I can somehow feed them it's not exactly an achievement.

1. These days, the manager of the Renault-Nissan-Mitsubishi was arrested for false declaration of his revenues=fiscal fraud. He earned something like 20 mil $ (salary + the rest) in 2017.

2. 1% of the world population own 50% of the world's total wealth. [*]


What counts is the poverty perception and the sentiment of "social injustice". And ex1 + ex 2 is enforcing that perception and that sentiment.

_____
[*] source: Global Wealth Report 2017: Where Are We Ten Years after the Crisis?
I believe that if my children were no longer dying of malnutrition because I could now feed them, I would see it as a big advance.

Both your numbered statements are really irrelevant. If I am pretty well off--if my basic needs are met and I have a little left for personal enjoyment, then I really don't care whether someone else is a lot better off than I am. Unless, of course, my world view is based on envy and resentment.

You said "What counts is the poverty perception and the sentiment of 'social injustice'."

That's what counts among those whose politics are based around the proposition that
" If there's something belonging to others
There's enough for all people to share"
As Huey Long put it in Every Man a King.

In other words, around envy and resentment.
 
Oct 2013
13,231
Europix
#72
I believe that if my children were no longer dying of malnutrition because I could now feed them, I would see it as a big advance.

Both your numbered statements are really irrelevant. If I am pretty well off--if my basic needs are met and I have a little left for personal enjoyment, then I really don't care whether someone else is a lot better off than I am. Unless, of course, my world view is based on envy and resentment.

You said "What counts is the poverty perception and the sentiment of 'social injustice'."

That's what counts among those whose politics are based around the proposition that
" If there's something belonging to others
There's enough for all people to share"
As Huey Long put it in Every Man a King.

In other words, around envy and resentment.

Not exactly, Mr Vagamundo.

Firstly: getting out of "extreme poverty", doesn't leave You an extra, be it even minimal, for personal enjoyment. Very often, doesn't even leave You enough for a proper schooling for Your kids, for example.

Secondly: it isn't about "envy", it's about perceived (and often real) social injustice.

Listen, if Your mechanic destroyed the car brought for maintenance, what will You do? Wait until he is destroying the next one, and then, You kick him out, not forgetting to give him a departure prime, 4 years of his salary?!?

It has nothing to do with any envy: why You and me have to pay the consequences of our mistakes/wrongdoings, while others don't?
 
Oct 2018
1,209
Adelaide south Australia
#73
deleted; Started writing this reply before seeing the previous two.

@deaf tuner I think your responses are in the same area as mine, but perhaps more articulate and knowledgable than I. Nothing I can add.

Bored now.

PS how on earth did we get from "The World Marks 100th Anniversary of WW1" to an argument based on one person's simplistic understanding of economics and statistics?

Still bored.
 
Last edited:

Solidaire

Ad Honorem
Aug 2009
5,358
Athens, Greece
#74
Do you have some stats or argument to try to prove this assertion?

Declining global poverty: share of people living in extreme poverty, 1820-2015

"According to these household surveys, 44% of the world population lived in absolute poverty in 1981. Since then, the share of poor people in the world has declined very fast—in fact, faster than ever before in world history. In 32 years, the share of people living in extreme poverty was divided by 4, reaching levels below 11% in 2013. Although the World Bank estimates for 2015 are not yet available, the projections suggest that the incidence of extreme poverty has fallen below 10% for that year." From Global Extreme Poverty . (emphasis added)
From your source (Global Extreme Poverty):

Total population living in extreme poverty, by world region

Share of the population living in extreme poverty, by world region

1543446674153.png

The third graph shows that extreme poverty had been reduced well before the 80's (and neoliberalism) in rich countries. It was further reduced in Italy (as an example of a European country), but Italy is hardly a neoliberal case study economy. As for USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, it remains static from the 70's and onwards.

"Second, we can also see from this chart that despite remarkable progress, in some rich countries—notably the United States—a fraction of the population still lives in extreme poverty. This is the result of exceptionally high income inequality. (See below for more on extreme poverty in rich countries). "

The first two graphs show that extreme poverty has been reduced globally, mainly but not exclusively, due to the economic progress of China, not a neoliberal economy. At all. From 890 million people living in extreme poverty in East Asia and Pacific, the number has fallen to 71 million in 2013. Significant progress has been made in South Asia too, from 510 millions in 1987, to half that number in 2013. I believe India is the main protagonist here, again not a neoliberal country at all. Quite the contrary.

In Latin America and the Caribbean extreme poverty had increased from 1987, to start falling significantly from 2005 and onwards. In Europe and Russia, extreme poverty saw a dramatic increase from 1987 (5 millions), to peak in 1999 (37 millions), and then start declining to the 1013 figure of 10 millions. My guess is that the reason for this is the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, extreme poverty remains as dire as ever, even increased in absolute numbers (from 252 millions in 1987, to 388 in 2013).
 

Sindane

Ad Honorem
Aug 2013
4,630
Europe
#75
Which version? I prefer the 1930 version starring Lew Ayres, a pacifist in real life. Regardless, if you have not done so, I urge you to read the book. I read it for the first time at age 16. It was shattering.

WW 1, with the obliteration of a generation of the upper class, marked the beginning of the end of the British Empire.

As with all former colonies, Australia suffered fearful losses. Our population was less than 5 million. 416,809 men enlisted. 60,000 died. 150,00 were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner.

The centenary of the end of the was is remembered here with deep sadness, for the loss a generation of young men. Many Australians have consistently , over the full 100 years, expressed deep anger at the perception of the incompetence of the British generals, and of their profligate waste of 'colonial lives'.

At a remove of 100 years, I don't know what to think. I'm aware of the human tendency to blame someone, anyone, when an unbearable loss is suffered. Just makes me sad.

This is sad. Something I saw on social media.

It's a neighbourhood in the English town of Grimsby. Each poppy represents a soldier who did not return home

45772507_10212431333170619_6304362496983564288_o.jpg
 
Oct 2010
4,844
DC
#76
Not exactly, Mr Vagamundo.

Firstly: getting out of "extreme poverty", doesn't leave You an extra, be it even minimal, for personal enjoyment. Very often, doesn't even leave You enough for a proper schooling for Your kids, for example.

Secondly: it isn't about "envy", it's about perceived (and often real) social injustice.

Listen, if Your mechanic destroyed the car brought for maintenance, what will You do? Wait until he is destroying the next one, and then, You kick him out, not forgetting to give him a departure prime, 4 years of his salary?!?

It has nothing to do with any envy: why You and me have to pay the consequences of our mistakes/wrongdoings, while others don't?
a good question. :confused:
 
Jan 2010
4,274
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#77
From your source (Global Extreme Poverty):

Total population living in extreme poverty, by world region

Share of the population living in extreme poverty, by world region

View attachment 13973

The third graph shows that extreme poverty had been reduced well before the 80's (and neoliberalism) in rich countries. It was further reduced in Italy (as an example of a European country), but Italy is hardly a neoliberal case study economy. As for USA, Canada, Australia and NZ, it remains static from the 70's and onwards.

"Second, we can also see from this chart that despite remarkable progress, in some rich countries—notably the United States—a fraction of the population still lives in extreme poverty. This is the result of exceptionally high income inequality. (See below for more on extreme poverty in rich countries). "

The first two graphs show that extreme poverty has been reduced globally, mainly but not exclusively, due to the economic progress of China, not a neoliberal economy. At all. From 890 million people living in extreme poverty in East Asia and Pacific, the number has fallen to 71 million in 2013. Significant progress has been made in South Asia too, from 510 millions in 1987, to half that number in 2013. I believe India is the main protagonist here, again not a neoliberal country at all. Quite the contrary.

In Latin America and the Caribbean extreme poverty had increased from 1987, to start falling significantly from 2005 and onwards. In Europe and Russia, extreme poverty saw a dramatic increase from 1987 (5 millions), to peak in 1999 (37 millions), and then start declining to the 1013 figure of 10 millions. My guess is that the reason for this is the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union.

In Sub-Saharan Africa, extreme poverty remains as dire as ever, even increased in absolute numbers (from 252 millions in 1987, to 388 in 2013).
Again, the real purpose of posting the chart is to contest the assertion that neo liberalism caused an increase in poverty. I don't believe neo liberal policies were pursued in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union--rather a kleptocracy took its place and is still in place today.
 
Oct 2013
13,231
Europix
#78
Again, the real purpose of posting the chart is to contest the assertion that neo liberalism caused an increase in poverty. I don't believe neo liberal policies were pursued in Russia following the collapse of the Soviet Union--rather a kleptocracy took its place and is still in place today.
Bof-bof ... it was a very liberal policy, with a total deregulation that went as far as the innexistence of the state.

BTW, I think I should warn You (and Americans/British in general) that You should take into account the different perception/understanding that a lot of Europeans (continentals) have on the notion of (neo/ultra) liberalism: it's practically only the economical factor token into account, not the liberty/liberties/rights/etc part (that's usually reffered separatelly, namelly by the word "democracy). And in my experience, ultra/neo-liberal is designing especially the vision of (quasi) total deregulation of the market, of (quasi) total action of the state in any domein of economy/finance/etc.

Maybe taking that into account could help the discussion?
 
Jan 2010
4,274
Atlanta, Georgia USA
#79
. . .

And in my experience, ultra/neo-liberal is designing especially the vision of (quasi) total deregulation of the market, of (quasi) total action of the state in any domein of economy/finance/etc.

Maybe taking that into account could help the discussion?
Please give me some of your experience with" ultra/neo-liberalism" (a term that is not used by those of us who believe in market-oriented economic systems.
(Noel Castree (2013). A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press. p. 339. ISBN 9780199599868. 'Neoliberalism' is very much a critics' term: it is virtually never used by those whom the critics describe as neoliberals.)

China under Deng was more "liberal" than under Mao. So a liberalizing economy helped bring about the decrease of poverty there.

So please provide some examples of what you mean by "Ultra/neo liberalism" so I can understand what you're talking about then track the economic results.
 
Last edited:
Oct 2013
13,231
Europix
#80
Please give me some of your experience with" ultra/neo-liberalism" (a term that is not used by those of us who believe in market-oriented economic systems.
(Noel Castree (2013). A Dictionary of Human Geography. Oxford University Press. p. 339. ISBN 9780199599868. 'Neoliberalism' is very much a critics' term: it is virtually never used by those whom the critics describe as neoliberals.)

China under Deng was more "liberal" than under Mao. So a liberalizing economy helped bring about the decrease of poverty there.

So please provide some examples of what you mean by "Ultra/neo liberalism" so I can understand what you're talking about then track the economic results.
(Alhough I know is incorect ... mea culpa!), usualy I use neo/ultra-liberal when refering to liberal policies that are promoting a total deregulation of the economy. The "market will self regulate" kind of stuff.

Personally I dislike the idea as it is bringing politicians that can hide their inaction, lack of vision, lack of responsability under it: "not my fault: it's the market ... can't do anything: it's the market".

I also dislike the idea, as it can bring a society to become anti-liberal (liberal here in the large meaning of the concept, the true one, would say an American). There was the example of the surprimes crisis, crisis that destroyed a lot of real value/real wealth because of the total deregulation of the financial sector, a total lack of transparency (even for themselves) and, as we saw after the crisis, a huge lack of responsability.

Another example could be GAFAM. They reached a level of monopoly that makes the saint principles of offer and demand, of free concurence a lure.
 
Last edited: