Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The history of the end of poverty has just begun

ourworldindata.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 449 posts

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#361

Post by nec4b »

nemothekid wrote: post #214
chrisco255 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, because the government is generally bad at using capital and the ROI on higher tax rates reaches negative at some point, nevermind that it can print as much as it wants.

> government is generally bad at using capital This is hardly true, and is only "common" wisdom due to an incredibly effective PR campaign by Ronald Reagan. In the 60s, when we were sending people to the moon, people didn't generally hold such contempt for government. Any large government is no more dysfunctional than a large private corporation - the inside of Google isn't all sunshine and roses. > that it can print…

Reagan was the government. Also in your opinion he represent a bad government and none the less you want more government?

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#362

Post by bryanlarsen »

dragonwriter wrote: post #317
goodpoint wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Under that definiton either both the 24th and the 22nd centuries are post-scarcity or neither are. Not at all. People need much more that wheat and widgets. > "Post-scarcity is not so much a matter of material wealth or natural bounty, but an organizational option for society". No doubt. Also, a lot of consumption and therefore scarcity is induced by culture.

> People need much more that wheat and widgets Infinitely more, according to orthodox economics, which is why post-scarcity is not a coherent concept within the framework of orthodox economics. The idea that there is a point of finite abundance where the basic relations of economics break down is, at best, highly speculative and completely undemonstrated.

A significant portion of our economy is post-scarcity. Software, movies, tv, books, video games are all non-scarce goods forced to fit into a scarce framework through IP law. They are distributed horribly inefficiently as a result.

The replicator would transform most physical goods into IP so perhaps a better economy would be structured around efficient and equitable IP creation and distribution, with the few remaining scarce goods hacked into the economy similar to how copyright hacks non-scarce goods into ours.

But there's a flaw in that previous sentence. The replicator uses energy to operate, and that's still a scarce good, even in the 24th. In the 22nd, an iPhone is >95% IP, yet its price is primarily set by the value of the scarce components in an iPhone.

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#363

Post by bryanlarsen »

mellavora wrote: post #302
nikanj wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why was the population so low?

because every person had a huge chunk of land! Compare population density today in a rich suburb to a poor inner city.

A fairly well (but far from universally) accepted thesis is that war and violence was widespread in pre-civilized times, keeping the population density low more "efficiently" than cycles of over-expansion and famine..

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#364

Post by ricardobeat »

silverberry wrote: post #355
ricardobeat wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume tribes living off-grid are miserable? That doesn't seem to be the case unless they are stricken by a particular disease / natural events, usually they appear to be very content with a simple life. That you would be miserable in their condition does not tell us anything about happiness.

This relativism isn't good for anything. They are poor and also underdeveloped in every sense. That's a fact. If you romanticize them you are not doing them any good. You simply cannot understand what being in their position is like. Any slight inconvenient to a modern society is a very serious event for them, eg. disease, drought, famine, etc. while you have most conveniences in life and most problems solved. As I s…

That is no argument. Not only you're again dismissing it based on opinion alone, now I'm being personally judged for it... I'm not going down that line.

Practically every research study on happiness associates it with health, family, culture, friends, purpose, religion. Comfort, physical goods, wealth are always at the bottom.

Living in simple conditions doesn't mean forfeiting health or basic sanitation. The question is still valid: you have a home, clean water, a surplus of food, friends, family, sanitary conditions, access to healthcare; but no TV, Netflix, car, laptop. You'll never afford even a mobile phone. Are you poor?

If not having internet, a phone or computer has a detrimental impact on your quality of life - which it most likely does for the vast majority of people who live in the city, have a normal job and bills to pay - then the answer is yes. If you go homeless, hungry or sick because of not having one of these things, yes. But what if it doesn't? It's not as black and white as you imply. This is much more of a philosophical question than socioeconomics (or marxism).

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#365

Post by dane-pgp »

WalterBright wrote: post #113
throwaway984393 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's quite a broad range of "poor" in America. At least medieval kings never ran out of food, which people in food deserts do regularly. And medieval kings would have been quite secure, compared to the extreme violence that makes up daily life in many of America's urban poor communities, which are some of the most dangerous in the world. I'm thankful that I've gotten to live in Northwest DC, South Chicago, West Ba…

I think you're seriously underestimating the rate of violence against kings. They didn't live in ruinously expensive, heavily fortified castles for nothing. They endured constant plots against them, from everyone, and to misjudge those threats meant death.

That would be an interesting study, actually, to see what percentage of medieval kings died of old age (and not in their successor's dungeon). As a first order approximation, I've looked at the Wikipedia article "List of monarchs of the British Isles by cause of death"[0] (which covers more than just the medieval period), and counted this summary:

  Natural causes: 60
  In battle: 15
  Murdered, assassinated, executed: 17
  Euthanised: 1
  Other: 2
  Accidental: 3
  Unknown: 10
The "other" category seems to be cases where the monarch was effectively imprisoned and/or murdered, and I'll exclude the euthanised king as being controversial from the point of view of "violence". That leaves 107 deaths, of which 34 were violent (battle, murdered, assassinated, executed, imprisoned), giving a percentage of about 32%. I guess if you live like a king you have to be willing to die like one too.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_monarchs_of_the_Britis...

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#366

Post by glogla »

nickpp wrote: post #341
glogla wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bulgaria has free healthcare and university education. People in Bulgaria are also very unlikely to be killed by police or die in a mass shooting. Bulgaria also has less people incarcerated per capita than the US. Bulgarian workers get mandatory 20 day of PTO a year. I could imagine lot of people who would think they are better off there than in the US. E: There's of course a lot of things that aren't great about Bul…

> I could imagine lot of people who would think they are better off there than in the US. I love Bulgaria (beautiful country, great people) but it's just your imagination: there are still more Bulgarians emigrating to the USA than Americans to Bulgaria. Lots more. Like almost one-way street, really. Poor minority Walmart employees having no idea how good they would have it in Bulgaria instead...

At the same time, I assume Americans would love to have 20 days of PTO, and not be afraid they end up in debt over disease or die because they can't afford insulin.

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#367

Post by sleepingadmin »

h0l0cube wrote: post #254

Could we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation?

>Could we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation?

It's far more complicated than that. How do you measure inflation across the world of disparate currencies and circumstances across a century? How do you measure it in hostile zones? Some warlord/dictator isn't going to report how much of their population is in poverty.

The error margins would be massive even if you could.

Then there's the complication of poverty vs extreme poverty.

Ultimately what we want to measure isn't 'do you have enough money' but rather 'do you satisfy your maslows heirachy of needs' or rather really how much?

If you look at a tribe, their physiological needs are met, their security needs are met, they most likely have friends and good social order, they very likely have a sense of accomplishment. So what's the problem?

Flipside, we in the rich world have created multiple planet wide problems and what if those tribe people are who have the solution? We want to get them connect to the internet as soon as possible.

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#369

Post by huetius »

h0l0cube wrote: post #254

Could we classify the lives in tribes and villages prior to civilisation as "poverty"? Or did "poverty" begin with civilisation?

One must be careful not to fall into Rousseauian “noble savage” myths. Primitive societies were also stratified, as evidenced by differentiated burials. Violence was also very much a part of their lives. Graeber talks about this.

That doesn’t mean that modern society has nothing to learn from its antecedents, though.

Re: The history of the end of poverty has just begun

#370

Post by roenxi »

ricardobeat wrote: post #324
roenxi wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems like a simple question - yes, they are poor. It would be miserable and horrific, and they'd be happy every day they were healthy because it would be a pleasant surprise. And there is nothing romantic about being poor and ignorant at the same time. Even if hot running water is now considered a colonial luxury.

Why do you assume tribes living off-grid are miserable? That doesn't seem to be the case unless they are stricken by a particular disease / natural events, usually they appear to be very content with a simple life. That you would be miserable in their condition does not tell us anything about happiness.

Because I have thought carefully about my lifestyle and, like pretty much everyone, decided that if I have the option of being grid-connected I will take it.

It is an open-and-shut case. If people are given a choice, it would be a good day when 1 in 100 would choose to live a life in absolute poverty. If these hypothetical secluded tribes had a choice, they would say the equivalent of "wow, antibiotics! Reliable food! Houses! Sign me up for this please, I want to be a part of it! This will make my life better!" in their local language.

Post reply on HN