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

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

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 160 posts

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

#121

Post by roel_v »

ma2rten wrote: post #102
roel_v wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"However, I though it would be helpful to start with a proactive thesis to get people thinking about this issue." Well sorry to sound like a grumpy grandpa, but if anything, this site needs less posts of higher quality, not more empty posts with the explicit goal of provoking replies. "How come the suicide rate in Africa is much lower (close to zero) than in Europe?" First, correlation between depression and suicide…

Well sorry to sound like a grumpy grandpa, but if anything, this site needs less posts of higher quality, not more empty posts with the explicit goal of provoking replies. I assume you mean more posts of higher quality. I agree with you in general, except that I know no site where the density of high quality posts is so high as here. If it was any higher, I would probably be afraid to post anything. However, social s…

Well I meant 'less posts, but of higher quality', but I admit that my wording was unfortunate to the point of indefensible.

I guess we're going off topic here and into a not so interesting discussion, but with the advent of universal access to heaps of data, the old ways of thinking are becoming less relevant. What we need is data and evidence; facts, not talk. Now you and I are from a country where it is a high good to let everybody have an 'opinion' (I dislike that word and the concept because opinions are like assholes: everybody's got one and most of them stink) about everything, but luckily we're now beginning to realize the detrimental effects of the excesses of that, and are curbing it. Many scientific fields are moving the same direction: less vacuous talk, more substance.

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

#122

Post by roel_v »

sek wrote: post #100
roel_v wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you even know what inflation means? You keep using it in contexts that suggest you have an entirely wrong idea of it.

I talk about the value of the dollar, when the author takes the metric 2.00$ this is relevant. The official inflation rate is in almost all cases totally wrong, because it takes way too few factors into account. This is a separate topic, how the inflation should be calculated. I think just that currency exchange rates are a better way to predict inflation trends.

"The official inflation rate is in almost all cases totally wrong" is a nonsensical statement. "Inflation" is not a uniform concept, to quantify it you have to take a certain basket of goods (the definition of which depends on the purpose of the exercise) and their nominal values and calculate the difference (or rate of change) of samples at various points in time. Furthermore, "inflation" is only relevant for nominal values; the that was used in the OP uses real values, and so do most statistics, because real value is the only comparable thing.

Especially your latest sentence shows that you have a completely warped view of monetary economics. How can one "use currency exchange rates to predict inflation trends"? That's a completely nonsensical sentence, but it doesn't matter what you really meant, because PPP is already used to combat this exact problem.

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

#123

Post by roel_v »

lwhi wrote: post #113
roel_v wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand your question? No, wealth isn't always relative (it's debatable but not so interesting if it's ever relative) - an 'average' farmer in the 1800's (in Europe) had a vastly worse lifestyle than an 'average' farmer today. Today, he is more wealthy in absolute terms. If you and I can each grow 100kg of wheat and 2 pigs per year when we work solitary, but if you can grow 400 kg and I can grow 4 pigs if…

I mean the wealth of one person in 1800, is relative to the wealth of another person in 1800. Likewise for today. So perhaps comparing the wealth of people in 1800 to today isn't actually that productive, because the baseline has increased? I think maybe my view of economics is flawed. My basic premise was that traditionally cost has traditionally been defined by scarcity of an item / service and consumer demand. In…

That's why I included the example of the wheat and the pig - there is no time component there. It shows that there can be various levels of wealth even at the same point in time, and that wealth is not zero sum, i.e. it's not necessarily true that for person A to get more wealthy, person B has to become less wealthy. They can both become more (or less) wealthy).

How do you conclude that a good with unlimited supply (which is I suppose what you mean by 'no limit to scarcity') would lead to bubbles or economic breakdown? It just means that in theory in a system with perfect substitutes for these goods, the cost would gravitate towards production cost.

The whole point is that prosperity isn't measured relatively. (well you could, but it doesn't make much sense in most cases). Prosperity is quality of life. Would my life be better if my neighbor doesn't have money to take his daughter to a doctor but I do? Only if I was a sociopath, which the majority of us aren't. When the tide rises, all boats go up. And yes there is evidence that in the margin, our feeling of well-being increases when we are higher on the social ladder, but that's a separate issue; "prosperity" and "feeling of well-being" are related but not the same.

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

#124

Post by DanBC »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #60
tfb wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As much as I despise all of the negativity in the news, the optimistic part of me sees it as a way to shine light on the many things wrong with the world at present. While the news may be a bit of a downer, I believe the lasting effects of it are for the best. When I learn of something terrible or even of a minor crime or injustice, the first thing that comes to my mind is along these lines: "There is obviously some…

The problem is that a skewed sense of what's going on in the world can give you a skewed sense of how to improve the world. Case in point: many people imagine that the developed world buying cheap goods and labor from the developing world is a kind of exploitation rather than a form of enrichment. It also tends to focus on exceptional events rather than on broad trends (positive or negative).

To be fair, sometimes there is exploitation involved.

(http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94721/AFRICA-High-cost-of-chi...)

(http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94939/ZIMBABWE-Child-labour-o...)

(http://www.irinnews.org/Report/94822/KENYA-Gold-mining-beats...)

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

#125

Post by davidw »

lwhi wrote: post #114
davidw wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having enough to eat is having enough to eat: it doesn't matter if someone else eats in a fancy restaurant. Edit: status is relative - if everyone else has a Ferrari, and I only have a Fiat, I probably feel poorer. However, I still have a car that is better, faster, and safer than anything that existed 100 years ago. Edit#2: the above is one reason that worrying about what you have in an objective sense is a lot heal…

Thanks for the edit. I understand what you mean - but then wealth is relative to your neighbour. In which case I don't understand how everyone in 1800s or today can be wealthy. EDIT: prosperity -> wealth

You're confusing 'wealth' and 'status'.

Wealth is what you have, in absolute terms. Status is a relative ranking.

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

#126

Post by roel_v »

aquateen wrote: post #104
roel_v wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you come with some data to support your accusations? The Economist is one of the last publications with a rigorous policy of publishing original data sources, in this case the World Bank, hardly the obscure special interest group you make it out to be. If you want to offer alternative interpretations of the data, or point out specific methodological flaws, or whatever, by all…

That was not an ad hominem. I really hate that phrase thrown about. Seems full of questions rather than accusations, and I didn't see obscure mentioned anywhere.

Oh please, for all intents and purposes, the gist of the GP is 'oh it's the Economist, they're a bunch of shills, so they're wrong'. I'm not going to argue nonsensical things like what exactly is an ad hominem, it's crystal clear that the GP intended to dismiss the message of the article by saying that because it's from the Economist, it's automatically wrong; i.e., that it's wrong because of who said it and their ideological background, rather than the substance of what was said. If that's not an ad hominem, I don't know what is.

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

#127

Post by DanBC »

ma2rten wrote: post #71
roel_v wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is vast scientific evidence that 'happiness' is positively correlated with 'wealth' (both in quotes to indicate that they're broad concepts, I'm not interested in discussing specific definitions). The scientific history is broadly that in the 1970's, it was thought there was little correlation (the 'Easterlin paradox'), in the 1980's and 1990's it was thought there was correlation up to some point of wealth (e.…

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 huma…

> How come the suicide rate in Africa is much lower (close to zero) than in Europe?

It isn't. Africa is a large continent. Some areas have higher suicide rates. Other areas have lower suicide rate. I've already posted a supporting link. I'm not sure where you get the idea that the rate of suicide in Africa is near zero.

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

#128

Post by roel_v »

calibraxis wrote: post #88
roel_v wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Instead of ad hominem attacks, why don't you come with some data to support your accusations? The Economist is one of the last publications with a rigorous policy of publishing original data sources, in this case the World Bank, hardly the obscure special interest group you make it out to be. If you want to offer alternative interpretations of the data, or point out specific methodological flaws, or whatever, by all…

I think cynicism is understandable. It is indeed an "ad-hominem" argument, but it's universal — for example, few in the West took what Pravda had to say at face value, when the Soviet Union existed. When institutions have a record of bias, their claims come under more scrutiny. It's just plain institutional analysis, which everyone uses to some extent. (The World Bank is hardly a neutral figure. Otherwise, how could…

There is skepticism, and then there is refusing to look into one's opponent's arguments' content. I'm all for skepticism, and I advocate double checking the data and figures of even one's closest allies, but that's not what the GP was doing - it was an outright dismissal of anything the article concluded, solely because if its author.

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

#129

Post by eru »

alexro wrote: post #98
derleth wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, I have a question: What evidence would persuade you that your current idea about this is wrong?

Is it the HN version of "go kill yourself" that intelligent people should use?

In a sense, yes. It's a very nice response in all kinds of arguments, and a question you should ask yourself often. The weaker the threshold of evidence you can offer that would change your position, and the discussion partner not being able to provide that evidence, the stronger your position.

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

#130

Post by tomkin »

hsshah wrote: post #5

Indeed. Couple of optimistic talks at TED that shows that on an 'average' it IS getting better. http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violen... http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_reveals_new_insights_o... However, the 24/7 news cycle drums up everything that is negative and hence most of "feel" that it is getting worse.

Part of me wants to accept this information, but I am worried that some kind of Freakonomics will come into play and we'll find that the reason why there appears to be less poor is because X is no longer being considered as Y.
Post reply on HN