Development-Underdevelopment

[dogukan]

Hello people, just wanted to see your take on this.
As we all know, we live in a world where majority of the humanity is in the role of "producers" and are in poverty. In some locations, the poverty is so bad that families can not even save in order to survive(and some cant even achieve that), academia calls this the "poverty trap"
Right after World War 2, especially with the decolonization process world was divided into two, and both sides tried to strenghten themselves by justifying their ways.
note: Both sides had a classical view, they all believed in stages of development-increase agricultural efficieny, people moves to cities, industrialize tadaaaaaa. West belived in market forces to achieve this, Soviet bloc believed in central planing.

Now Soviets are out of picture so I'm going to concentrate on west. In the field of development, there had been many theories to perceive the world and identify problems-solutions, concepts like poverty.
For a long time, west believed that increasing productivity, financial and tech aids would simply bring the countries lacking behind to their level. Its 2012, and the ratio of poor people have not declined while significant successes had been achieved, the majority of humanity still remains in poverty. Not only that but in some cases projects of World Bank and SAPs of IMF had led to even more problems.

Now obviously, the belief in market forces remains strong even though with the crises since the 90s starting with Latin rebellions, neo-liberalism is on decline.
-
After the brief intro, getting to my question.
Recently I was reading Philip McMichael's book "Development and Social Change"...He is a (neo)dependancy theorist influenced strongly by Marxist analysis of systems.(but not necessarily a Marxist, so this is not really a typical arguement between "capitalism PWNZ" "communism killed milliards!!!1!!)

The thing with dependancy theorists is that, they do not believe in the "modernization" thinking of many other "top-down" approaches.(there also bottom-up approaches) They believe that development IS WHAT CREATES UNDERDEVELOPMENT and that every country is unique, therefore we can not talk of a "stages of development" path:increase productivity of agriculture which will support industrialization in a dynamic economy which will integrate into rest of the world. He goes as far as saying that the NICs are there to support the TNCs with their exports, and today with globalization we see a world-wide division of labor. Certain countries produce certain things, and grow by increasing their productivity exporting these to first world for the CONSUMER SOCIETY and the TNCs.

Now this makes a lot of sense. We see that even the succesfull projects of the International Financial Institutions ended up creating poverty while achieving GROWTH and productivity increase which simply DID NOT TRICKLE-DOWN as expected. Take the Green Revolution, while it did increase food production greatly ending the concept of famines in many locations(well Asia), as a side effect it decreased rural employment greatly, creating a sharp decline in wages hence making poverty worse.
Irrigation methods and many other "modernizing" projects, integrating into liberal economy simply destroyed lifestyles of millions of people, robbing them from what they had for living...maybe not in good conditions but relatively speaking, in their OWN WAYS which they did not see as a problem until someone pushed them into "being modern" and left them on the streets countries that are only enjoyed by fast growing elites of the said countries.
The first world only enjoys this, because it is called neo-colonialism.
During the colonial period, these local cultures were shaped into cash crop exporters which completely overhauled their social structures and economic systems...when they were given independence, west kept their influence in these countries, still encouraging primary product exportation preventing them from a balanced growth.

And the worst part is, research shows that this kind of development, even in the case of First World is not sustainable, because the earth simply can not keep up with demands of the current system. And if development is not sustainable its not really development...we always have to calculate long term.


There, whats your take on this? Poverty,development,underdevelopment: what would you suggest for solving these,where do you think the problem lies..etc? I know it is VERY BROAD but just wanted to see some opinions.

[dogukan]

also a great documentary here, I'd say it is a must see to get a peak at the way global economy works.
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/end-of-poverty/

[Rolling Thunder]

Development is what creates underdevelopment.

That has to be the most systemically stupid assertions I have ever heard. You might as well argue that thermal energy causes cooling. There seems to be some obtuse idea amongst academia that the solution to our problems is rationing, is not spending, is not consuming, is not expanding but rather staying at some base level of subsistence and leaving things well alone.

Underdevelopment is caused by politics. Specifically, bad politics - misallocated spending, outright theft, corruption, and the failure to establish conditions vital to sustained economic growth (namely, the rule of law and order).

[dogukan]

Development is what creates underdevelopment.
That has to be the most systemically stupid assertions I have ever heard. You might as well argue that thermal energy causes cooling. There seems to be some obtuse idea amongst academia that the solution to our problems is rationing, is not spending, is not consuming, is not expanding but rather staying at some base level of subsistence and leaving things well alone.

Did you actually read what I wrote? Development does not equal "progress of humanity" here, it is in ECONOMICAL terms.
Many conventional developmentalist defined the term by purely economic terms. And then we have came to a point where economic growth obviously does not equal development. And the term has expended in its meaning. Not only that, but economic development also did not occur in the third world(well relatively it did occur, but at the same time numbers of poor have increased drastically) and the inequality has only widened without trickling-down.
Its not about staying at the same level...but it is more of a criticism of classicist modernist thinking which constantly have failed and yet it is still dominating because of the forces financing this, such as the TNCs. Obviously, no one cares about what the African rural family wants when they are trying to SAVE THEM. Which is pretty hilarious.

Underdevelopment is caused by politics. Specifically, bad politics - misallocated spending, outright theft, corruption, and the failure to establish conditions vital to sustained economic growth (namely, the rule of law and order).

Ehehe, thats a nice simplification of complexity of economics there. Care to elabore about these processes? I'd really like to see your opinion if you can give a good one...

[Rolling Thunder]

Many conventional developmentalist defined the term by purely economic terms. And then we have came to a point where economic growth obviously does not equal development.

No, it means economic development, which is frankly the only development that matters when it comes to making people healthier and richer.

Not only that, but economic development also did not occur in the third world

I hereby call , citing the following: South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Botswana, Brazil, India, South Africa, Kenya and even Zambia. All of these countries, despite being dirt-poor in 1945, have made rapid strides towards prosperity due to economic growth (as if there were any other way), despite oft-violent politics.

(well relatively it did occur, but at the same time numbers of poor have increased drastically)

Stuff and nonsense. Show me a source for this farcical claim.

and the inequality has only widened without trickling-down.

Inequality is not a problem. Absolute poverty is a problem, and it has been decreasing in Africa.

Obviously, no one cares about what the African rural family wants when they are trying to SAVE THEM.

Having spoken to several African rural families, I'll tell you what they want. Houses. Jobs. Clean water. Electricity. Law and order. Roads. Schools. Hospitals. They also want a car, a TV, a fridge, plenty of food, and the like. Their African nature does not make them any different to you or I - they desire sustenance, stability, health and wealth. And what is the cause - and provider for - all these things? Economic growth.

[dogukan]

sorry for a late reply, twc has became a key place to procrastinate for me, I had to break it ...

No, it means economic development, which is frankly the only development that matters when it comes to making people healthier and richer.

What you are saying is not untrue nor it is true. It is simply a perspective. But when you put it like the absolute truth, it sounds more wrong.

I hereby call , citing the following: South Korea, Japan, Indonesia, Malaysia, Botswana, Brazil, India, South Africa, Kenya and even Zambia. All of these countries, despite being dirt-poor in 1945, have made rapid strides towards prosperity due to economic growth (as if there were any other way), despite oft-violent politics.

I don't know if fellow TWC members here actually read before writing anything, but the whole was about discussing this if you have not realized. All these countries have achieved tremendous growth, heck I'm from Turkey which just became an NIC last year with its fast industrialization and integration within the global economy.
The main question here is, despite the growth that has been achieved on macro-scale, we do not see a decrease in the number of poor people. In fact, in some locations we see an increase in poverty.
I was looking for an answer to this.
Then I decided to present one of the grand-views on the issue, the dependancy theory, which explains this by making a dialectical relation in global economy. Therefore, explains the growth by increasing poverty in certain locations.

Stuff and nonsense. Show me a source for this farcical claim.

Poverty rates have increased in certain locations. But the overal ratio remains the same. The main reason for this is seen as distributive problems and no-trickling down.
Also, there is no unified definition to poverty.
I know in my country for instance, despite the fast growth, while you can see clear results of development, you also see suffering and poverty sharpening.

Inequality is not a problem. Absolute poverty is a problem, and it has been decreasing in Africa.

You are not the one to decide what the real problem is, you can only say your opinion on what the real problem is. A change of attitude would be really nice for a constructive arguement.

Having spoken to several African rural families, I'll tell you what they want. Houses. Jobs. Clean water. Electricity. Law and order. Roads. Schools. Hospitals. They also want a car, a TV, a fridge, plenty of food, and the like. Their African nature does not make them any different to you or I - they desire sustenance, stability, health and wealth. And what is the cause - and provider for - all these things? Economic growth.

That is not what I meant, I meant as a way of "solving problem" which are more about technicalities not macro-micro demand relations.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Poverty rates have increased in certain locations. But the overal ratio remains the same. The main reason for this is seen as distributive problems and no-trickling down.
Also, there is no unified definition to poverty.
I know in my country for instance, despite the fast growth, while you can see clear results of development, you also see suffering and poverty sharpening.

Sources, not restating assertions.

The y-axis is billions. The red line in particular is undeniable evidence that a rising tide lifts all boats. As for poverty in the developed world:

[Rolling Thunder]

What you are saying is not untrue nor it is true. It is simply a perspective. But when you put it like the absolute truth, it sounds more wrong.

No, it is an absolute truth. The only way to make people richer is to increase the amount of wealth they possess. The only way to increase the amount of wealth in a country - or the world - is economic growth, because that is what economic growth is, the increase of the amount of material wealth in a nation.

The main question here is, despite the growth that has been achieved on macro-scale, we do not see a decrease in the number of poor people. In fact, in some locations we see an increase in poverty.

SOURCEY SOURCEY SOURCE SOURCE. NAO.

Then I decided to present one of the grand-views on the issue, the dependancy theory, which explains this by making a dialectical relation in global economy.

Dependency is caused by foreign aid versus foreign trade. Trade, which is far more beneficial, does not cause dependency.

You are not the one to decide what the real problem is,

Yes, I am. Absolute poverty is what causes starvation, wars, misery, desperation, famine, drought and the various other plagues that have afflicted man. Absolute poverty is when you do not have a roof over your head, clothes on your back and food in your belly. Absolute poverty is when your life is characterized by slowly dying from lack of basic necessities. Everything else - that isn't real poverty, just a political phantasm conjured up to evoke people's sympathies. Inequality causes people to be upset and envious of their fellow man who has more. At worst it causes crime. It does not, however, cause people to starve to death - that can only be caused by people being in absolute poverty.

[Copperknickers II]

The current model of economics is based on poverty, yes. It can hardly be denied that there would be pretty serious consequences for the lifestyle of the West if every country had the same employment laws, pay rates, economic system and political infrastructure that we do.

[dogukan]

Exactly, statistically speaking, if Chinese consuming was at the level of the USA, apparently we would need 8 earth's like this one to be able to sustain that.
So when we talk about poverty all over the world, if the first world is really out there to actually help, they have to change somethings about themselves first. The random rants about Africa sucking, Latins being bad boys and Asians on average threathening the good western values-is actually a result of the west legitimazing it's intervention all over the world for it's own gains. And by west I do not really mean the average citizen. It is however kind of obvious that, when you have the whole world working for your surplus, you get a pretty nice life in your economy which is built on exploitation of the rest of the world.
Obviously, the rest of the world does not have anyone to exploit to get to the same level.

I love how, South Korea for instance, after being given all those access and no-strings attached aids joining to the ranks of the first world in just 50 years. It simply happens, when the developed world lets it...so then, the underdevelopment is there, because the developed world wants in to remain this way. (I know it sounds weird when I put it like this but there is lots of reading and statistics and dialectical thinking behind this)

[mrmouth]

It is however kind of obvious that, when you have the whole world working for your surplus, you get a pretty nice life in your economy which is built on exploitation of the rest of the world.

Obviously, the rest of the world does not have anyone to exploit to get to the same level.

You need to differentiate between Western governments and Western corporations, that are often wooed by the 'Third World'. It isn't as if they just bully their way in and start building.

A company like Apple was wooed to China. They built factories complete with dormitories for tens of thousands of workers to work 12 hour days for $17/month, before Apple moved production to China. And those hours and wages are within China's work laws.

When Steve Jobs wanted a glass screen for the iphone at the last minute, Apple called China the next day (it was the middle of the night there) and the factory woke up 3000 dormitory workers, gave them a cup of tea and a cookie, and they worked a 12 hour shift to retrofit the factory for the new glass screens in the middle of the night. The glass factory right down the block was owned by Owens Corning (a US company founded 160 years ago), and the screw manufacturer was just a few factories down. They had a new screw made in 3 hours.

The results for Apple and Owens Corning are obvious. But they were wooed to China. And even if they wanted to bring those manufacturing jobs back to the USA, they cannot. It would require a total re-balancing of the world economy if even a dozen of the larger tech companies did that.

And it isnt really even about profits - it's about supply chain. Even at the height of the USA's industrial might, we couldn't do what China can. Apple could bring those jobs back, and analysts have concluded it would add $60-70 to the manufacturing cost of the iphone. But they would still make hundreds on each sale.

These new economies are about production, and the West is about innovation. If China and India want better working standards and wages, they have all the ammunition they need to ask for them. Apple could pay those workers $10/day and still makes out like bandits.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Well I haven't read the book and never heard of the author, but if your characterization of his arguments is correct I don't have much respect for him as an economist. Any sympathy for Marxist interpretation of anything destroys his credibility, and I imagine that's why he's an unknown.

The beauty of the free market is that a rising tide lifts all boats. You are correct that every labour-saving innovation devised has resulted in the redundancy of whoever used to do its work. This has been percieved as a problem since the Industrial revolution. But it never has been. If we can now produce the same with less labour, we have liberated labour to produce something else - increasing our total production and making everyone richer. Of course it causes unemployment. But former farm labourers, no longer needed on the land, move to factories. Ex-factory workers, replaced by machines, can move into higher order production. Any unemployment in between is only temporary. Proof of this can be seen in the 8.2% rate of economic growth in India. There is an obvious problem in that a small minority of the workers will, for whatever reason, be unable or unwilling to do anything but the job they just lost, but it's unavoidable.

I also think your second bunch of assertions is ridiculous. Nobody anywhere is forced to accept any kind of modern technology. There aren't thousands of simple aboriginal farmers across the world being forced to use combine harvestors at gunpoint. Farmers are business people who make independent decisions in their own interests and noone else's. The fact is, if a farmer wants to compete on the world market, they need the efficiency given by modern technology. You're pointing out coercion that doesn't exist.

Claiming anyone in the world wants to live in their "own ways" (what you mean is the dark ages) is ridiculous. Nobody wants to live in a medieval society. This is a strange and blatantly racist view that seems to plaugue the economic left. Nobody in the first world wants to go back to the middle ages. Why would people elsewhere in the world just because they're not white? Overhauling social structures is a good thing. Or would you like a return to feudalism? Liberalism is something that can only exist in societies of equal rights.

Then you claim the west has influence in the deveoping world, "still encouraging primary product exportation preventing them from a balanced growth". The developed world does indeed have influence in the developing world. Its influence is economic. Developing countries are mostly agricultural and place a focus on manufacturing because those are things consumers in the developing world will buy lots of. You are incorrect when you say this is "imbalanced growth", whatever that is. It's the very definition of sustainable growth. And it makes every single person there richer.

And finally, at every instant in time since 1991 there has been less poverty in the world than before.

The current model of economics is based on poverty, yes. It can hardly be denied that there would be pretty serious consequences for the lifestyle of the West if every country had the same employment laws, pay rates, economic system and political infrastructure that we do.

No the current economic system is based on creating wealth. Wealth for everyone.

Some day every country will have the same labour regulations as the first world. And then the job of the Factory worker will be done by machines.

So when we talk about poverty all over the world, if the first world is really out there to actually help, they have to change somethings about themselves first.

You are correct. We do need to abolish our ridiculous import regulations in the EU and USA. The CAP in particular is impoverishing countless foreign farmers.

But consumption in the developed world is a good thing for the developing world.

[dogukan]

Well I haven't read the book and never heard of the author, but if your characterization of his arguments is correct I don't have much respect for him as an economist. Any sympathy for Marxist interpretation of anything destroys his credibility, and I imagine that's why he's an unknown.

The moment I read this part, I lost all my excitement to get into a proper arguement with you. How does Marxist interpretation, which is dialectical materialist understanding of ANYTHING destroys ones credibility? Do you even know what Marxism is? HAve you actually read anything on Marxist perception?

Secondly, he is not unknown, however the field of development remains mostly academic so you can not read these stuff randomly around, you need access to academic works. I know for a fact that Joseph Stiglitz who is kind of close to this thought is very well known.
Also I clearly MENTIONED that he is not really a Marxist in the classical sense...on the contrary he is a big critique of classical approaches.
I have written there about the approaches of both West and Soviet Bloc representing a classical approach.
-
Are you clear on these? I do not want to go in circles of arguement that happens everytime here on TWC with stupid prejudcies people have without having any intellectual base on the stuff they talk about.

The beauty of the free market is that a rising tide lifts all boats. You are correct that every labour-saving innovation devised has resulted in the redundancy of whoever used to do its work. This has been percieved as a problem since the Industrial revolution. But it never has been. If we can now produce the same with less labour, we have liberated labour to produce something else - increasing our total production and making everyone richer. Of course it causes unemployment. But former farm labourers, no longer needed on the land, move to factories. Ex-factory workers, replaced by machines, can move into higher order production. Any unemployment in between is only temporary. Proof of this can be seen in the 8.2% rate of economic growth in India. There is an obvious problem in that a small minority of the workers will, for whatever reason, be unable or unwilling to do anything but the job they just lost, but it's unavoidable.

Okay, everything I had written was a criticism of this and you just repeated to same things without putting anything to counter what I said.
This was exactly the expactation of the world when Marshall made his speech after the second world war. And for pretty much the past decades, the field of development, while not domianted by this thinking in academia, was dominated by this in practice.
It simply ended up multiplying the number of poor and malnourished, widened the gap between rich-poor to extreme levels.
The chase of solving everything simply by increasing productivity ended up making the world a worse place statistically.
None of those of you said had been achieved. Not a single step was taken that way. It simply did not happen, because economics turned out to be much more complex than that.

I also think your second bunch of assertions is ridiculous. Nobody anywhere is forced to accept any kind of modern technology. There aren't thousands of simple aboriginal farmers across the world being forced to use combine harvestors at gunpoint. Farmers are business people who make independent decisions in their own interests and noone else's. The fact is, if a farmer wants to compete on the world market, they need the efficiency given by modern technology. You're pointing out coercion that doesn't exist.

Did you take that literally? Of course it does not happen at gun-point. Well mostly...the poverty around the world is not a phenomena that appeared suddenly. I have to say, throughout the colonization period, or during the time where western influence directed the leaders of the third world, some of these actually did happen by force literally.
But I meant how by forcefully integrating people to global market economies(for more read: debt traps, IMF, Structural Adjustment Programs and Neo-Liberalism), they actually force them to change in their own interests.

Claiming anyone in the world wants to live in their "own ways" (what you mean is the dark ages) is ridiculous. Nobody wants to live in a medieval society. This is a strange and blatantly racist view that seems to plaugue the economic left. Nobody in the first world wants to go back to the middle ages. Why would people elsewhere in the world just because they're not white? Overhauling social structures is a good thing. Or would you like a return to feudalism? Liberalism is something that can only exist in societies of equal rights.

That is not what I meant either...What I meant was that all these cultures had unique economic conditions, but with the colonization and NEO-colonization period this had been forcefully changed.
E.g: The Indian silk which was seen superior to anything in European market was simply destroyed by British administiration. Manufacturing of it India ended and the production was directed at EXPORTING natural resources as much as possible, while the manufacure of the finished product was shifted to motherland...from there, they sold it to INDIANS again.
And things are not much different today. West still tries to keep the third world in an primary product EXPORTING role rather than helping them industrialize or manufacture anything. And they are pretty influent in preventing this from happening. This is called monopolistic capitalism which is a reality of our world.

Then you claim the west has influence in the deveoping world, "still encouraging primary product exportation preventing them from a balanced growth". The developed world does indeed have influence in the developing world. Its influence is economic. Developing countries are mostly agricultural and place a focus on manufacturing because those are things consumers in the developing world will buy lots of. You are incorrect when you say this is "imbalanced growth", whatever that is. It's the very definition of sustainable growth. And it makes every single person there richer.

The markets were primary products are very unreliable, low price-product. And you have no idea of what you are talking about. Not only that, but even the control of these primary resources are owned by TNCs, who are only there to exploit working conditions and low wages OR the landowners-elites of the region who they corrupt easily which is the main source of extreme inequality.
Economically speaking, if I was head of a TNC I'd be much happy with the way things are in the third world than if they had the same rights as in the first world.

And finally, at every instant in time since 1991 there has been less poverty in the world than before.

No, average incomes had increased there and there and many good things did happen. But at the same time number of people in povery have more than doubled.
When you are mentioning how India gained 1 million rich, they add more than 50 million poor to their country.
That is called "growth for the sake of growth" in the field of economics. Which did occur, and I clearly mentioned that as well. But then I said, then WHY DOES POVERTY MULTIPLY at the same time.

No the current economic system is based on creating wealth. Wealth for everyone.

Okay I need more than that. I'm pretty sure I know a great deal about liberalism, capitalism how they work and their history. We are PUTTING on that here, if you can do the same.
Repeating the same thing as if its a religion while the world is not getting better is ridicolous.

Some day every country will have the same labour regulations as the first world. And then the job of the Factory worker will e done by machines.

dreaming? Yo do realize that human labor has to be compeletely abolished and I see no way markets functioning in such a world, NOR there is a way we are heading towards that right now. Because with neo-liberal SAPs, WEST actually decreased the working standards of the third world and made exploitation easier for the sake of growth.

[AqD]

Some day every country will have the same labour regulations as the first world. And then the job of the Factory worker will be done by machines.

and then those who are no more competitive than simple machines will be dumped into sea

[Claudius Gothicus]

Just a simple thought, if underdevelopment is directly created by development that would mean that social system's exchange of products and services would be a zero sum game(all exchanges can be reduced to zero a when someone gains others have to lose in order for that gain to be properly summed up into a final zero).

That would mean that the larger a Country's GDP per capita is the smaller it's neighbor(or as dependency theory puts it ''the third world') has to be, at least proportionally. Is that even possible?

[dogukan]

Just a simple thought, if underdevelopment is directly created by development that would mean that social system's exchange of products and services would be a zero sum game(all exchanges can be reduced to zero a when someone gains others have to lose in order for that gain to be properly summed up into a final zero).

That would mean that the larger a Country's GDP per capita is the smaller it's neighbor(or as dependency theory puts it ''the third world') has to be, at least proportionally. Is that even possible?

No, that is not it. The Third World has been mostly growing constantly. This is the point where GDP fails to give you a picture, because the matter here is wealth distrubution.

Third World has the role of
*cheap labor
*exportation of primary products-which have low value. And they are either owned by TNCs OR local elites who only contribute to inequality and bad conditions with their lobbying
*acting as a market for the first world-they are discouraged from developing their own production complexity and remain dependant on tech-aid support from west. Since the colonial times even though their geographies might not even be suitable for what the west offers.
This becomes very significant especially with the agricultural issues.

First World
*Consumer societies, manufacturing complex products and sell them all over the world.
The workforce is shifted to third world. The weight of production is also shifted to third world. And west protects their own industries by preventing third world competing them.
How do they get this influnce? Through IFIs and using the constant debts to in a way "enslave" them.



Overall growth occurs in both third and first world. But the in the third world's case, the weight is put upon the poor increasing inequality to great extend. Which is why poverty is increasing along with growth.
So the growth is not pro-poor.
This guy was the first influent person to try pro-poor growth(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_McNamara) but then in the 80s neo-liberalism became dominant. And the motavation was actually more POLITICAL than economic.(cold war, market for ideological reasons and not for people..etc)

[removeduser_4536284751384]

Wow I really need to debate in a more friendly style, sorry about the snapiness, I don't realise how hostile I sound when I'm typing...

[dogukan]

That is exactly what I'm referring to. You see changes in ratio and relative growth but the amount of people in poverty actually increases.
You do realize that this process also has population growth in it.
And while there was more than a billion people in poverty in 70s-80s, it has not changed and even increased...but we also have seen increased growth in population, so it looks like things are okay.(the main reason behind this being sudden change in China btw)
Can you actually find the NUMBERS of people in poverty since 1960s?

The growth is only relative, poverty is increasing in numbers. Thats one of my main points here.
Have you read about the millenium development goals? BEcause they are about to become a massive joke in 2 years.

[removeduser_4536284751384]

That is exactly what I'm referring to. You see changes in ratio and relative growth but the amount of people in poverty actually increases.
You do realize that this process also has population growth in it.
And while there was more than a billion people in poverty in 70s-80s, it has not changed and even increased...but we also have seen increased growth in population, so it looks like things are okay.(the main reason behind this being sudden change in China btw)
Can you actually find the NUMBERS of people in poverty since 1960s?

The growth is only relative, poverty is increasing in numbers. Thats one of my main points here.
Have you read about the millenium development goals? BEcause they are about to become a massive joke in 2 years.

Find me sources of your position. Anything that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

[Mr. Scott]

Poverty only increases because as nations develop, they change their definition of "poverty". Poverty in America is wealthy in Africa.

China just recently adjusted their definition of "poor" that resulted in tens of millions now being considered "poor".
http://www.economist.com/blogs/freee...s-poverty-line

Sure, "relative poverty" has increased, but that's only because during industrial revolutions, the wealth gap usually expands. But this doesn't mean that the poor get poorer. Across the board everyone's standards of living has improved.