For the first time ever, the number of poor people is declining everywhere

Actually, I had though about this issue some more and I looked up this type of research. So my actual point of view is a little bit more nuanced then what I wrote in the parent post. However, I though it would be helpful to start with a proactive thesis to get people thinking about this issue.

Often people in the West just see people in Africa as victims, based on what they see in the media. Start seeing them as humans.

The average Togolese man would be hospitalised for depression in Denmark.

That sounds a bit odd to me, though. How come the suicide rate in Africa is much lower (close to zero) than in Europe?

You're absolutely right, which is why that's exactly how poverty is measured. :) The World Bank actually uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day in 2005 dollars for "extreme poverty". Let's break that down:

First, as I said, the World Bank uses a PPP measure of $1.25 per day. PPP stands for Purchasing Power Parity, which means that this is measure doesn't mean "has US $1.25 of local currency at current exchange rates", but instead means "has enough local currency to buy a basket of goods and services which could be purchased for $1.25 in the US". Or in more concrete terms, the World Bank is defining it as "can buy as much rice or flour as would cost $1.25 in the US", not "can buy $1.25 of rice or flour at local prices".

Second, the measure is in constant 2005 dollars, which means that it is indeed indexed for inflation.

And now you know. :) (Other poverty measures do focus directly on calories or food, but food isn't the only good or service the very poor need to purchase. That's why the World Bank uses a basket containing a mix of goods and services. Nothing's perfect, but the Bank's measure is pretty good at accurately tracking the condition of the poor both over time and between countries.)

First, we are spending alot of money on development, not just countries but NGOs too. Mostly in a bad way (somethimes with very good intentions sometimes with with not so got intentions).

"Its very simple: the distribution of things is just quite unfair, deliberately so. Many countries are actively repressed. The World Bank provides loans as a mechanism of economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Again, a major problem is that many of the citizens of the first world aren't even aware of this."

This is true in a way. The problem is that these countries let them self get hooked.

- They overspend on stuff (mostly military but infrastructure too) witch the often buy from other countries instead of investing in (and thereby building) there own industries.

- Then the get hooked and let the controll of there resources slide to private industrie from outside the country (witch would be ok if the taxed them enougth)

All this is happening and it is bad I agree but these countries have to learn that if somebody comes and offers something its in the sellers intresst.

This is not really diffrent from telcos offering bad deals you have to look at that stuff befor you buy.

All this said I agree that the first world does really bad things they often act like the give a helping hand but its not really a helping hand. I agree that this needs to stop. The World Bank and the IMF do alot of bad things.

I do not think that they deserve what they get but I would say that it is in part there fault.

"So people in every country need accurate holistic information "

You cant expect everybody to know enougth about economics but you can expect the countrie leaders to do so. The problem is that building up everything from with the west is much faster then doing it on your own and if you have bad leaders (diktators/persidents/kings) who only care for there themself, accepting "aid" from the west is the fastes way to get rich (a hole other problem is that sometimes the west helps them to stay in power)

tl:dr:

- What is called "aid" from 1st world often isn't

- Developing countries don't look close on what they buy

- Developing countries often have bad leaders

---------------------------------------------------------

I just don't like the term economic warfare or modern-day colonization. Its a Free-Market there are just good players using bad players, but the bad players did not get forced to play or to play the way they did (Expet when the are actually forced like Iraq).

>>Maybe wealth is actually inversely correlated with happiness?

No, Its probably Ignorance is bliss. Just take them around a trip across Europe and you will see that their happiness will vanish.

Peer comparisons are a major reason why many people loose their happiness.

I agree that progress has been made. There is enough food to feed everyone; but there is still starvation happening, mostly in Asia.

Your jpeg link has a graph with an unlabled axis and no source for the data.

A commonly accepted figure for people living on less than $2 per day is between 2billion and 2.7billion.

But that ignores the people living very close to that, who are at risk of severe hardship if they have a failed harvest.

(http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/05/poor_econo...)

> "To help clarify the matter, get rid of everyone else and put our worker on a desert island, hunting and gathering fruit. If he's bad at it he'll work very hard and not end up with much food. Is this unfair? Who is being unfair to him?"

Now introduce one other person, on a different island. This person alters the environment; more rain, less rain, hotter climate, different water temperatures and salinity etc. These all make it much harder for the first person to grow crop and catch food. Sometimes his home is destroyed in flooding. The second guy is okay, he's living comfortably. He's a bit annoyed about the cost of petrol. If he watches a lot of news he may see the first guy being flooded out of his home. Is this unfair?