If by 2015, only 10% of the people are living on under $1 a day, that seems great on the surface. Unfortunately, inflationary upswings change the purchasing power of the money. In 1970, $1 a day bought a LOT more than currently. The banks are making it so that you have to make $10 a day by then to maintain the same purchasing power as $1.
Without the truth, there can be no real morality, justice, equality, success, freedom, love, security, peace, spirituality or even survival. To seek the truth, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says.
On average, India's poverty went down, but there is still unequal development. In reality, the GDP as well as per capita income and so forth only increased because the urban population and the ownership class was prospering. The rural population probably had to endure incredible poverty and neglect just for the government to polish its image in the UN and sit at the West's table.
Ther cure to world poverty is to rise up, topple the Capitalist circus, wave your red flags and join with all other Socialists all over the globe, Unite!
Like the person below me said, don't forget about inflation.
On top of that, please don't forget the increasing inequity in the world.
Don't comfort us with the illusion that the problems in our world are being cured so we can sit back in our couch and wait for a better world. It is not good for people.
@proletarian48 >> implying that democracy (anti-capitalistic or not) and capitalism are separable entities.
All factual evidence is against you. Even many countries of africa are developing. Countries like South Korea, Japan, China were just as poor as those countries 50 years ago. China was much poorer then India. and India experienced a era of stagnation under socialistic policies. Japan and Korea are wealthy even for western standards. This excuse that only wealthy are getting wealthier. If that was true people in Europe would be just as poor as in Africa.
FUCKING CAPITALIST BASTARD! WE AS THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAVE DECIDED TO NO LONGER TOLERATE RICH BASTARDS LIKE YOU! WE SHALL UNITE AS ONE TO ONCE AND FOR ALL DESTORY THE COROPORATE MACHINE, MURDER THE GOVERNMENT, SMASH THE STATE AND FIGHT FOR A TRUE DEMOCRATIC ( anti-capitalist) WORLD!!!
@proletarian48 For those concerned about the wealth redistribution, world's poor, immigration, global government and a world without borders, check out:
u fucking deformed sperm now go stick this in your mother's fat cunt and dont forget to lick it you piece of shit .you if u think u can do better than anyone else then die trying.u fucking ass wipe trash go clean that hairy fungus dick first before u
TELL THE PATIENT HALF CLOTHED HALF FEDD See but you are in the percentile which is 80% better than other group IOt does not Cloth Him or Feed him which is REAL you fantasing theorist Causing War by Inventing nomenclatures Combatant Civilian Collateral Damage New World Order Terrorism Premptive attack Saving Life Ans DERVING military police Regulatory agencies ENSLAVEMENT I dont care about your CRAFTY definitions and play of words greates LAZY bumcriticizing while farying inhis bottom
TELL THE DISEASED HALF CLOTHED HALF FED but you are in the percentile which is 80% better than other group It does not help Cloth Him or Feed him which is REAL you fantasising theorist Causing War by Inventing nomenclatures Combatant Civilian Collateral Damage New World Order Terrorism Premptive attack Saving Life Ans DERVING military police Regulatory agencies ENSLAVEMENT I dont care about your CRAFTY definitions and play of words greates LAZY bum criticizing while ..inh is bottom
GoingGoingGalt: This is hardly the forum for a substantive discussion. However, my point was that if you take away a person's land, where he can grown things and have a subsistence, but consistent living, and replace that with a salary that makes him dependent on others to buy his food/rent from, you'd better make sure his salary is enough to replace what he's lost. In many cases, it is not, and these graphs don't account for that loss.
@Scottonthespot305 Who are you to determine for a person that his life is worse off than previously? Who are you to declare that his life is not better off than before without his personal input? You have zero evidence to support your claim, and yet you have the nerve and audacity to appoint yourself the speaker of every person you consider "poor"
We always have depended on people. Should we not pay them for their service to us? You seek an unrealistic lifestyle
Just let me as you if you concentrate on a circle different that which is important, SYCHOPHANT Banker Jew ( hitler got upset by these bankers )by not Forced taxes but by heart Capitalism you Dogs belives is the way to fund charity Idiot Salvation Army Food Pantry Free clinics Philonthropy Voluntarism in the Hospital Sv chgools are done not for greed as you mad Freidman Saddam of Chicago Eco Mafia yielding much more pwerfull missiles thanKASSAM hypocrites mr, Know all clueless
@Scottonthespot305 YOU SELF CENTERED FANTASISING THEORIST CUDDLED FAT CAT FROM UNIV CHICAGO DEPT OF ECO BALCOPNY SELF GRANDUISED BY AWARDS OF IGNOBLE NOBLE HA HA HA
Just let me as you if you concentrate on a circle different that which is important to common people like me . You think of a circle with radius or earth but ppl like me only want a balanced budget in my Town .YOU CAN DO GOOD mr, SYCHOPHANT Banker hitler got upset by these bankers )by not Forced taxes but by heart .no greed
Looks impressive until you realize that income alone doesn't measure wealth. How many of those people had to give up subsistence farming - which produces no income - to work in sweatshops, which provide only a meager income and a lower quality of life?
@Scottonthespot305 You just said that income alone doesn't measure wealth, then you ask how many work in sweatshops which provides only a meager income. Its like income doesn't matter until you can use it for a cheap political point.
Income gives people the chance for a higher quality of life. I don't see your point
come on now. due to inflation $1/day does not mean the same as it did a decade ago. there are more poor people because the poverty line must have now shifted to <$5/day or so. so there are more poor people & more income inequalities now than before. just because you have more money than before does not account for how much you can buy with that money now. add to the mix, the global economic slump & worse things to come, food shortage cuz of bio-fuels, more people might go hungry than before.
the United Nations can tell us whatever that it wants. they work together with the USA Government and the Biggest Companies of the world, and not for the human race. Ether way, the UN-main building were in other country like Switzerland or another neutral one. The whole thing is that every 5 seconds one person in the world dies because of hunger and more than 10 million people die because of preventable sickness like malaria or diarrhea. I'm talking about fact.
Through global free trade, we'll get these great results like the extrapolation chart. But, what's ironic is as soon as we're making progress within the parameters of poverty (defined by easily having the means for the necessities of life imo), overpopulation will be some kind of political problem to the gov'ts and they'll start to over-regulate markets and slow down growth once again. You rarely can win with Progressives.
The Globalization critics comments are reinforcing the fact Liberals would rather be poor and equal than rich and unequal. Its not about poverty its about having the necessities of life. From their perspective life is a zero sum game and if they want everyone to have the exactly the same amount of the pie. But if we are to be rewarded according to our abilities and our abilities for what ever reason are distributed unequally the only solution is an unequal one.
Bill gates :estimates 40 billions,Warren Buffett 37 billions,Carlos Slim Helu & family 35 ,just to name a few personal fortunes (look for the The World's Billionaires) + All the States in the world capitals:Many thousands trillions (at this point you can only get estimates )
So is an oversimplification saying : "...the fact Liberals would rather be poor and equal than rich and unequal."
not really, the point is is that wealth growth slows down and asymptotically approaches zero under a regime that doesn't allow the almost unadultered pursuit of profit
who are you to be in a position to say who gets what? I could say the same thing about you... In a free trade agreements people don't act unless both parties feel that they benefiting from it.
Bud the average salary in the world is $2000. So are you willing to tax those that make 10x or around $20,000 the world's average salary with a 70% tax rate. Are you willing to give half or more of your salary to help the worlds poor? Your not greedy are you? You can happily live on $2000 while the government takes the rest so you can help the worlds poor can't you?
ok so u saying an averge salry its like 2000 dolrs a month right?yes im not greede im happy to give most of it to poor im not a rich man bth i will share wth them for sure
ok i dnt get it right bfre im not a rich person im making around 400 dllrs maybe a month huh both what i said bfre i tht about tht richest class the erning a lot of money so the can shere some small percent wyh a poor right.....
im not complaning mate tht a fact im not rich person im just simple guy both i wuld l;ike to change few things in tht crueal world i herd tht if every wrking person giv just a DOLLAR a month in europe and states it will be no poverty and hunger at all it is so diffcult????its not both fact its lot of people just dont care i wsh to bevery rich so i can spend all my fortune on poor kids and homless
@martini9799 The solution is not redistributing existing wealth or giving money from the have to the have nots. The solution is to give the poor a solution to create their own wealth and not just receive handouts from others. We have given Africa trillions of dollars in foreign aid but many African countries are just as poor as they were a century ago. The solution is not as simple as giving money from the have to the have nots.
ur right tht a fact bcse bilions of dollars are donated to thir world countries allredy both still if we can we need to help to the poor we cant be selfish it can change a lot of things in 3rd world countries
If there is more than enough capital in the world why don't we start with the top 5%?
As it is right now anyone in the west making 20k makes 10x as much as the "average" Human.and is in the top 5% So lets tax those in the top 5% with a 40-91% tax brackets. But generally when liberals hear this option they want to redistribute some one else income rather than their own.
tht good idea mate to tax this greede bustards huh..... tht its a good solution i think bth still tht informations are very optymistic huh poverty it slowly dissapering from world.... hope one day will go for good and all people will have a good lives God bless
The solution is not to redistribute several poverty advocates such as Mohamed Yunus think that redistribution efforts such as the World Bank and other foreign aid programs would have a better result by literally throwing money out a plane.
Well Asia has not received the foreign aid for basic needs but Africa has. Trade in Asia has brought billions of people out of poverty and has provided the basic needs of the people and then some. According to the UN the number of people living in extreme poverty has been reduced from 40% to 25% since 1980.
But aid has created a cycle of dependency in Africa enriched those at the top and put the continent further in debt. So yes the money has been squandered and it would better to throw out.
But if he prevented from selling the fish to a smaller population through taxes and regulations you sell less fish. But if fish sellers can sell to a global market consumers will pay less for the fish and can buy more fish and producers can sell more fish to more people.
Perhaps this is naive of me, but over the thirty-year span presented does the inflation and depreciation of the dollar not account for the shift of the impoverished population across the outdated poverty line, at least somewhat? If you are knowledgeable of this topic, please reply, I am quite interested.
has it says in the description it is set for inflation. as for the depreciation of the dollar, currency is relative. Depending on what currency you use. It was probably all averaged out over all currencies. Sooo it would be difficult to say if it had any effect on the poverty level.
Why is it so hard to believe that poverty is being reduced? 200 years ago Europeans and Americans were poorer than modern Africans, and most were subsistence farmers living in mud huts. Half were dead by the age of 5. If Europe and the US can do it, why can't the rest of the world?
Hans Rosling said that over the past century Africa has made the most progress economically. They never measure where they were before capitalism they just lump people in rich and poor countries. In less than a century African went from a medival state economically to where Europe and the west is 100 years ago.
Aren't you forced by circumstances to work? Working and providing for yourself was what you called life before the creation of the welfare state. As we have seen time and time again. Low wage low skill jobs in rich countries are often high wages high skill in poor countries. The jobs creating shoes for MNC have better wages jobs and working conditions than native businesses. Their hiring people increases the demand for labor and wages.
i can enjoy the sun shine without ignoring the fact that that all life is ever endangerede from the point of its beginning :D. i f we stop beeing excited about all the good and bad in the world we can change things to how we like them more easily ;)...peace!
A big mistake in this video is that it makes a global povertyline while the living conditions in the countries on the world you of course they are very different to each other...
It think it would be cleverer to make at least a dynamic poverty line because so you can get very easy a wrong picture of income when you don't add the inflation as a global factor...
You can't say the people get richer when the inflation overrun them...
moob744, I see that you are skeptical about global warming. This shows that you are not a huge second-hander. Why then, do you accept the dogma of altruism and unselfishness? You might try reading something by Ayn Rand someday. Just a suggestion.
Excuse me, EFFECTIVE? and so recent events in this Great Moral System are merely a glitch? corrected by the equally charitable means of the Bailouts? Capitalism is only popular with the Masses because of Advertising,Propaganda,as the Great Thatcher proclaimed "There is no such thing as Society",and Behold! it was so...as whole Industries were sold-off to Foreign Investment, Whole communities were to decline.Amazing?
The recent events were clearly and indisputably caused by government intervention. Also, I would not say that capitalism is popular with the masses. In my experience, I have heard nothing but hatred against the free markets. And yes, there is no such thing, or rather should not be, such a thing as "society"- if by "society" you mean a system in which the individual is subordinated to the somehow morally superior "common good" of the collective.
No, it was the non-intervention and non-regulation and pig-at-the-trough-greed, pure and simple that caused the pack of cards to fall. Yes, the "pack" is being re-shuffled and "new hands" being dealt-out to stabilize things, but what does that achieve? Besides I thought the Moral High Ground belonged to such as keep the whole charade going?As for Society-please-let's agree on at least the definition of the word?
To simply declare that this economic crisis was a consequence of greed is absurd, I'm sorry. There were just too many governmental factors that contributed to this mess. To simply evade and refuse to look at them is more than unintelligent, it is morally unjust. Also, people should not be so willing to trade a little liberty to gain a little security. As Ben said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserves neither and loses both."
Also, I would like to say something else. You use the expression about a pig eating out of the trough. I would like to use the same expression. If a pig is eating out of a trough, it is implied that there is food in the trough. But, where does that food come from? Obviously, somebody had to put that food there in the first place. That food had to be produced. Capitalist nations are the same way. We enjoy our high standard of living because we are productive, and enjoy the fruits of out labor.
"We enjoy our high standard of living because we are productive, and enjoy the fruits of out labor. "
You are productive because you exploit the cheap labour and resources of third world countries, by the results of historical imperialism. But you can keep telling yourself it's just because you think you are better.
Oh give me a break. The zero-sum fallacy is always at the base of all socialist logic. What people in the third-world want more than anything is to work in foreign sweatshops and factories. There are numerous examples of this, both now and in history. Your problem is that you do not believe human achievement is possible. You believe that whatever accomplishment is made, has to be done by taking away from another source. That is a terrible, destructive mindset.
I did not make a zero-sum fallacy. But if you are going to ignore the imperialism, war, and foreign policies that created the conditions that Western nations exploit, of course you are not seeing things in context. If given that a man is holding a gun to your head, is he being generous by offering you a chance to save your life if you turn over your wallet?
The only ones with the power to hold a gun to anyone's head are governments. The only "private" companies that could carry this out would have to exist in a mixed economy, where government interference in the private sector could create corporate jailhouses, where the employees are certainly exploited. This, however, is impossible in a 100% capitalist world. Also, wars are detrimental to a free market. History has shown that all major wars have been fought by totalitarian regimes, not free ones.
In World War II, both Germany and Russia would dismantle entire factories in conquered countries and ship them back to the "Fatherland". The United States, on the other hand, GAVE weapons, lent factories, and other assets to its various allies. In socialist/totalitarian countries, force is the only way to produce anything, since the producers have already packed their bags and left the country. Capitalist nations can produce within their own borders, socialist nations do not.
Capitalist nations depend on exploiting the cheap labour and resources of other nations. They may not absorb it into a controlled economy as socialist nations would, but they aren't isolated as you seem to imply they are.
Unless you can give me an example of a self-sufficient free market economy without any major inequalities or problems, I don't think you can use capitalist nations as good examples of the benefits of capitalism.
You can't deny that Capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people all around the world. The degree to which a society embraces capitalism is the degree to which it flourishes. How do you explain Hong Kong, India, and former USSR nations? No other economic system has raised living standards as fast as Capitalism. That being said, there are no truly capitalist nations today. The major economic problems discussed today originated in government offices and bureaucracies.
"You can't deny that Capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people all around the world."
"All economies today are either socialist, or on the road there."
How are you reconciling these two contradictory statements? You claim it is capitalism that has raised the living standard yet all economies are mixed so where is your proof that "pure capitalism" is beneficial and government interference is restraining that?
There is no contradiction, you just misunderstood me. I put that the DEGREE TO WHICH a society embraces capitalism is the degree to which it survives and prospers. More capitalistic nations are the most successful, and the least capitalistic nations are the least successful. That fact is both explicit in my comment, and implicit in everything else I have said.
How do you explain the Soviet Union? They were technologically advanced, and yet there was still famine. Also, technology is no good unless it is used. Someone might make a light bulb in a fascist/socialist nation, but then what? It would just sit there. We average people are the ones to reap the many benefits of capitalism.
How can I give you an example of a self-sufficient market economy if they don't yet exist? All economies today are either socialist, or on the road there. If you want to see what it might have been like, do a little reading on the 19th century. In 1750, England's population was six million, nine million is 1800, and twelve million in 1820. This is what I call a population explosion, which is only possible through an increased standard of living.
And why do capitalist nations depend on exploiting labor in other nations? The only "exploiting" going on is international trade, but I would hardly call that exploitation. Trade benefits everybody, from the billionaire capitalist to the lowly peasant. Everybody walks away with a little more than they had before.
Maybe you are referring to women and children working in factories and sweatshops. First, let me say that, no, the conditions are not good. BUT, they are better than any other work, and they should not be judged by our modern standards. Factory work is much easier for women than any other "man's" work, and the children likewise. Child labor will stop when it is economical for it to be so, that is- when the parents make enough to support their children.
Once again, being given such a choice within a state-capitalist framework is not necessarily a choice of freedom. Child labour is unethical in itself, and so the actions of those create the conditions that require others to result to child labour are acting immorally.
You are not advocating freedom, you are advocating being a slave to the market, which by the way needs to be reinforced by governments. It also requires violent international affairs to keep the market "free".
There are no slaves to the market? Who are slaves? What one group of people on the entire planets are slaves to the capitalistic system? Please give me the name of one person so I can send them a check. Capitalism is the free system, all others involve some force of government involvement, and government is an agency of force, not of freedom. Also, before there was capitalism, people payed using human beings as currency (the real slavery).
Slavery in the US was wiped out because it became uneconomical for the South to continue using slave labor while the north was mass producing things 200% faster and more efficient.
We make the trainers for 2 dollars then ship them and advertise them as Cool and sell them for 400% above cost price. Then Nike keep the money and sue's any one that stands in there way.
Nike getting the world work for fuck all.
But dont worry the factories in Africa will poison the local drinking water as well.
If that's how you define mixed economies, that includes just about every nation-state to ever exist. I find it kind of odd how you are defending institutions like sweat shops which exist in the world economy of government-protected corporations, but then say you oppose the government that allows those conditions to exist.
Wars may be detrimental to the freedom of the market, but they are not necessarily detrimental to the corporations who have monopolies over the market.
The income gap between the fifth of the world's population in the wealthiest countries and the poorest fifth of the world's population was 74 to one in 1997, up from 60 to one in 1990, and 30 to one in 1960.
At some point, the people who choose to produce babies they can not feed, clothe or educate, are responsible for their actions. We all make conscious choices in life. How can I feel pity for people who crank out child after child in the most destitute of places? Breeding poverty, is not an accident. You either have self-control, or you don't. Only a fool assumes responsibility for the stupidity/selfishness/shortsightedness of others. If you cannot feed, don't breed!
Yah, your chart is moving into the right direction... ASSUMING THESE RATES OF GROWTH CAN CONTINUE FOREVER!!
But the fact is... if each person around the world would be able to consume as much as the average american we would riquire an Earth about 6 times bigger just to keep up with the rate of consumption without further growth!!
Your video it's based on the "bigger cake fallacy": "What do you prefer: equal pieces of a smaller cake, or such a big but unequally distributed cake so that even its smallest piece is bigger than a piece of the other cake?"
Well, I have news for you: THE CAKE CAN'T KEEP GROWING!!
I can't believe the creator of this video spent all that time crunching numbers without having the understanding that more dollars don't mean more wealth!
If; and that's a big IF; each individual on the planet is enjoying greater consumption than they were, say, 30 years ago; the only thing that can be attributed too in the capacity of technology to take resources from the earth at a faster rate than the system earth can replenish itself.
I can't believe the creator of this video spent all that time crunching numbers without first understanding that more dollars for more people don't mean more wealth for more people!
If each individual on the planet is enjoying greater consumption than they were, say, 30 years ago; the only thing in which that could be attributed too is the the increased efficiencies of technology to take more resources from the earth than the earth can replenish naturally.
The amounts given are adjusted for inflation and currency. That means that in 1974, the "$1" line is equivalent purchasing power to today's "$1"; it's the cost of, say, a candy bar or a sack of potatoes. To put that in perspective, 8% more of the world can afford a sack of potatoes per day today than could in 1974 or whatever. That is a measurable positive gain; it means that many, many more people today can afford enough food that they do not starve. I hope that makes sense to you.
Most people do not even know the world is bankrupt. Money is only generated through debt, therefore, generating more money within the system can only serve to make the situation worse. The worst affected, the Africans for example, are not staving due to scarcity of local resources, they are poor through lack of buying power. The world needs to learn to love itself enough to realize that we deserve to be fed. Even if that food has to be created for free through volunteering and nanotechnology.
and you can make services like the national healht much more efficient by turning many of its functions over to private companies private service providers and still provide good quality
I agree. Although, it would be a shame if privatization of the health service becomes as bad as it was with the rail service. It can often result in corruption. Some things are so important they need to operate outside capitalism.
At least until capitalism can realign with nature.
Your absolutely right thanks :). Good example. And I guess if the issue of corruption in the world is sorted, as it should already not exist, the premiums will go down and the standards carry on improving.
Well at least Rich people get Richer. Gotta invest ppl! I think the root of the problem is that all the poor people don't know how to diversify their portfolio. /sarcasm
nice music but otherwise pretty much a waste of a click. for one thing that lovely lil graph 'timeline' shows that granted the 'poverty line and under' may be a few less. (1.4 to 1.2 billion in one transition) but the thing i noticed that remains the same if not worse is the peak in what i would call 'damn near poor' nearish the left 'poverty line' yet across the scale that smaller side ridge of rich more or less remains unleveled, there is a major disproportion within 'wealth' distribution...
so what you are saying is the free market and globalizatiojn has reduced world poverty not made it worse? i agee i am an ex socialist and third way advocate
market capitalism sometimes needs to be regulated but it is the solution not the problem
I agree with your capitalism statement. That's why the G20 protests were allowed to seem anti-capitalist because the real problem is the size or existence of government. I need to study socialism. Because from what I have already have learnt, it appears to me to be just another form of herd management and not a honest system of governing for the people.
It important to have a bit of history most oscialist werent evil or stupid they truelly meant the best of intent but the road to hell is paved with good intent,by the end of the 70s governements over taxed and overegulated, Britians labur party since Atlee who was a good bloke after all
he started the welfare state and the national health service BUT
the nationalized industries and hix taxes cripppled britian the irony is you can raise more for services by lowering the tax rate
ohh yeah you're right, the problem is that it is slightly different and i couldnt recognize it but I actually liked this version.Thank you very much for helping XD
Eye of the Tiger" is a song performed by American rock band Survivor from the album Eye of the Tiger, released in 1982. It was written at the request of Sylvester Stallone for the film Rocky III. The original mix of the song, heard in the film, features tiger growls, though the single omits them
Yes INFLATION means that $1 in 2009 is worth much less than $1 in 1970. Hence people haven't really escaped poverty at all.
Besides, your graph shows people moving to just past the $1 mark. Even if they received $5 a day, when you account for inflation this is a loss, not a gain.
They don't even use US dollars in those countries. What you do is compare purchasing power against a today's $1 worth of some basket of consumer goods in America. That's how you compare GDP between countries and ages.
true, thanks to Modern Science Technology, we are living better than yesterdays... well.. but, in "a" world, who will be the conqueror of the world? the USA FDR pigs?? The New chinese Big guys ?? Or Other Asian brilliant riches?? actually.. we had 2 big wars, and now,, i guess.. we are being into another upcoming destructive war.
step into the sunshine... i'd like to... but......IS $1 IN 1970 WORTH THE SAME AS IN 2015? I don't think so... i agree the picture might be getting better... but overall... hmmm..if u take into account inflation.. not so sure
most of the problem lies in wealth not income. If you have to spend all your income to survive wherever you live then how much money you make a day means shit. if a large majority of people are making a small percentage of the income they still have to compete with one another for the available resources. an increase in income over the years does not necessarily mean an increase in purchasing power. wealth is relative.
o what do we owe this improvement? Capitalism, according to the U.N. Free trade is rightly recognized as the engine of global prosperity in recent years. In 1981, 40% of the world's population lived on less than $1 a day. Now that percentage is only 25%, adjusted for inflation. And at current rates of growth, "world poverty will be cut in half between 2000 and 2015" -- which is arguably one of the greatest triumphs in human history.
Very good point. People say what about those people working in sweat shops. However, the people in those sweat shops now make way more money and work safer jobs. Not to mention the employees like it better. When a nation outsources more jobs are created both abroad and at home. The examples of real capitalism can be seen in Hong Kong. Sure there are poor people, but the poor live great lives and everyone has a chance to succeed.
I think its horrible that people have to work in such poor conditions. But multinational corporations are the solution and not the cause of low wages and poor working conditions. Foreign corporations have higher wages and better working conditions than domestic producers. This pressure forcing the all domestic manufacturers to improve working conditions or lose their workers to the multinationals.
You're missing a vital source of wealth though - capital. Capital belongs to the land owners (the multi-nationals) as opposed to the people who create the bulk of that capital (workers). Sure they get their wage crumbs, but what about their stake in the capital they create? This is why capitalism is unsustainable - real wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, simply because all that labour is their "private property".
In the united states, people (mainly immigrant) worked for terrible wages in sweat shops. However they saved their small wages and began to buy stuff. Soon we needed sales agents and many people to help sell what people could now buy. Now that more and more people can buy products we created a middle class of wealthier people. We now created a middle class in a poor society. Look at Hong Kong as an example and industrializing Britain both show the same results.
Yes but the question is sustainability. Look at what is happening to the middle class now, as more and more capital is monopolised and wealth concentrated. Things may be rosy today, but heaven forbid we ignore 50 - 100 years down the line. Purchasing power will dwindle among the consumer class as this model perpetuates. Many economists are now realising this, and have warned people of the conflict between creeping monopoly and labour.
The middle class has access to more items than ever before. Poverty condition in the United States continue to get much better. 40% of America's poorest have cars. We see that the price of everything in amount of time need to acquire the item has gone down significantly. America's working poorest give the most money to charity than any other group.
Imported items, yes. That's just the surface reality of it. Without cheap imported goods, and capitalists driving down the cost of labour in occupied nations, Americans wouldn't have enough purchasing power to buy back their own production.
The squeezing effects of neo-lib capitalism are being disguised cleverly and desperately now. The prosperity is apparent, but it's built on a house of cards, with two interests working against each other - the labourer and the capitalist.
If someone is willing to work cheaper then I'm happy to have them be the ones working. If it is cheaper to make something in China then who wins? The Chinese person has more labor and money and the American now has a product and can use his money to buy something else. When we outsource out labor more jobs are created because of the cheaper labor causing an increase demand. That is why many outsourcing companies like the software industry are expanding overseas and in America.
But you see they're not always "willing". This is the fundamental point that neo-liberals overlook. The current model allows multi-nationals with immense capital holdings to buy out land (property) for ridiculously cheap in nations that have little democratic power in the world trade councils. It's not just about China, although I'm sure the Chinese labourers would rather the capital they create be put back into their community funds, rather than paying off minority shareholders.
SO less poverty, less poor, hungry people, good, but also less money in this economy right now tosupport them? ehhhh
NeilJunior12 1 week ago
If by 2015, only 10% of the people are living on under $1 a day, that seems great on the surface. Unfortunately, inflationary upswings change the purchasing power of the money. In 1970, $1 a day bought a LOT more than currently. The banks are making it so that you have to make $10 a day by then to maintain the same purchasing power as $1.
JesterCurse 5 months ago 2
Without the truth, there can be no real morality, justice, equality, success, freedom, love, security, peace, spirituality or even survival. To seek the truth, search "Truth Contest" in Google and click on the 1st result, then open The Present and read what it says.
DemianHermann 6 months ago
On average, India's poverty went down, but there is still unequal development. In reality, the GDP as well as per capita income and so forth only increased because the urban population and the ownership class was prospering. The rural population probably had to endure incredible poverty and neglect just for the government to polish its image in the UN and sit at the West's table.
BaseOfLiterature 8 months ago
Ther cure to world poverty is to rise up, topple the Capitalist circus, wave your red flags and join with all other Socialists all over the globe, Unite!
cultofmao 8 months ago
Like the person below me said, don't forget about inflation.
On top of that, please don't forget the increasing inequity in the world.
Don't comfort us with the illusion that the problems in our world are being cured so we can sit back in our couch and wait for a better world. It is not good for people.
@proletarian48 >> implying that democracy (anti-capitalistic or not) and capitalism are separable entities.
Dear proletariat, please grow up.
zitoh 9 months ago
Don't Forget about Inflation
mahatango747 9 months ago
To bad poverty is getting worse and this film sucked
RealFutureStar33 1 year ago
@RealFutureStar33
All factual evidence is against you. Even many countries of africa are developing. Countries like South Korea, Japan, China were just as poor as those countries 50 years ago. China was much poorer then India. and India experienced a era of stagnation under socialistic policies. Japan and Korea are wealthy even for western standards. This excuse that only wealthy are getting wealthier. If that was true people in Europe would be just as poor as in Africa.
serialkiller1990 7 months ago
FUCKING CAPITALIST BASTARD! WE AS THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD HAVE DECIDED TO NO LONGER TOLERATE RICH BASTARDS LIKE YOU! WE SHALL UNITE AS ONE TO ONCE AND FOR ALL DESTORY THE COROPORATE MACHINE, MURDER THE GOVERNMENT, SMASH THE STATE AND FIGHT FOR A TRUE DEMOCRATIC ( anti-capitalist) WORLD!!!
proletarian48 1 year ago
@proletarian48 Is that comment supposed to be a joke?
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@proletarian48 For those concerned about the wealth redistribution, world's poor, immigration, global government and a world without borders, check out:
Immigration by the Numbers -- Off the Charts
short, easy to understand, with gumballs
/watch?v=muw22wTePqQ
vechorik 3 months ago
u fucking deformed sperm now go stick this in your mother's fat cunt and dont forget to lick it you piece of shit .you if u think u can do better than anyone else then die trying.u fucking ass wipe trash go clean that hairy fungus dick first before u
BadKhank 1 year ago
Ha Ha Ha U stinking piece of shit one of Billon poor pulling rick shaw tempo
taxi or bullockscart plough for farming u living like coackroahes in dingy
dharavi slums of delhi foot path of kolkata beggers . You would prositute
your mother to get even work permit to mid east countries servant Ha Ha Ha
Lol OlOl ROTFL
--
Not known by the institution but institution known by me
BadKhank 1 year ago
TELL THE PATIENT HALF CLOTHED HALF FEDD See but you are in the percentile which is 80% better than other group IOt does not Cloth Him or Feed him which is REAL you fantasing theorist Causing War by Inventing nomenclatures Combatant Civilian Collateral Damage New World Order Terrorism Premptive attack Saving Life Ans DERVING military police Regulatory agencies ENSLAVEMENT I dont care about your CRAFTY definitions and play of words greates LAZY bumcriticizing while farying inhis bottom
BadKhank 1 year ago
TELL THE DISEASED HALF CLOTHED HALF FED but you are in the percentile which is 80% better than other group It does not help Cloth Him or Feed him which is REAL you fantasising theorist Causing War by Inventing nomenclatures Combatant Civilian Collateral Damage New World Order Terrorism Premptive attack Saving Life Ans DERVING military police Regulatory agencies ENSLAVEMENT I dont care about your CRAFTY definitions and play of words greates LAZY bum criticizing while ..inh is bottom
BadKhank 1 year ago
@BadKhank Learn English please.
mike19371937 1 year ago
GoingGoingGalt: This is hardly the forum for a substantive discussion. However, my point was that if you take away a person's land, where he can grown things and have a subsistence, but consistent living, and replace that with a salary that makes him dependent on others to buy his food/rent from, you'd better make sure his salary is enough to replace what he's lost. In many cases, it is not, and these graphs don't account for that loss.
Scottonthespot305 1 year ago
@Scottonthespot305 Who are you to determine for a person that his life is worse off than previously? Who are you to declare that his life is not better off than before without his personal input? You have zero evidence to support your claim, and yet you have the nerve and audacity to appoint yourself the speaker of every person you consider "poor"
We always have depended on people. Should we not pay them for their service to us? You seek an unrealistic lifestyle
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
@Scottonthespot305 Btw why don't you directly respond to me next time so that I can actually see you have responded to me.
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
Scott
Just let me as you if you concentrate on a circle different that which is important, SYCHOPHANT Banker Jew ( hitler got upset by these bankers )by not Forced taxes but by heart Capitalism you Dogs belives is the way to fund charity Idiot Salvation Army Food Pantry Free clinics Philonthropy Voluntarism in the Hospital Sv chgools are done not for greed as you mad Freidman Saddam of Chicago Eco Mafia yielding much more pwerfull missiles thanKASSAM hypocrites mr, Know all clueless
BadKhank 1 year ago
@Scottonthespot305 YOU SELF CENTERED FANTASISING THEORIST CUDDLED FAT CAT FROM UNIV CHICAGO DEPT OF ECO BALCOPNY SELF GRANDUISED BY AWARDS OF IGNOBLE NOBLE HA HA HA
Just let me as you if you concentrate on a circle different that which is important to common people like me . You think of a circle with radius or earth but ppl like me only want a balanced budget in my Town .YOU CAN DO GOOD mr, SYCHOPHANT Banker hitler got upset by these bankers )by not Forced taxes but by heart .no greed
BadKhank 1 year ago
I consider making 10 dollars a day poor. So they need to recheck these numbers
nikeheader 1 year ago
Looks impressive until you realize that income alone doesn't measure wealth. How many of those people had to give up subsistence farming - which produces no income - to work in sweatshops, which provide only a meager income and a lower quality of life?
Scottonthespot305 1 year ago
@Scottonthespot305 You just said that income alone doesn't measure wealth, then you ask how many work in sweatshops which provides only a meager income. Its like income doesn't matter until you can use it for a cheap political point.
Income gives people the chance for a higher quality of life. I don't see your point
GoingGoingGalt 1 year ago
Looks cool, but I'd be interested to see that graph layered with one showing the dropping value of the dollar over time.
mdlagreca 1 year ago
@mdlagreca It’s ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION! It uses PPP dollars!
MacOSY 1 year ago
these are PPP dollars, so it is all ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION YOU IDIOTS
MrHal90000 1 year ago
come on now. due to inflation $1/day does not mean the same as it did a decade ago. there are more poor people because the poverty line must have now shifted to <$5/day or so. so there are more poor people & more income inequalities now than before. just because you have more money than before does not account for how much you can buy with that money now. add to the mix, the global economic slump & worse things to come, food shortage cuz of bio-fuels, more people might go hungry than before.
msquestionmark 1 year ago
what loll each years the cost of life up soo there always more of poor DUHH....
jejeroy 1 year ago
I'd recommend to watch the documentary "HOME"
TheMegaPolita 1 year ago
the United Nations can tell us whatever that it wants. they work together with the USA Government and the Biggest Companies of the world, and not for the human race. Ether way, the UN-main building were in other country like Switzerland or another neutral one. The whole thing is that every 5 seconds one person in the world dies because of hunger and more than 10 million people die because of preventable sickness like malaria or diarrhea. I'm talking about fact.
TheMegaPolita 1 year ago
There is revealed how socialistes lies us about the stupid idea of the "capitalism genocide" by the poverty.
Acazziah 1 year ago
this is stupid. over time, your 'poverty line' should move due to inflation and the constant rising of prices.
Ramsez 1 year ago
bulshit poverty is gettin worse every day by the looks of it the way where goin today we r screwed n forever will be
fuck the UN education is the solution
tillida06able 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Hello, great video!
Could you come to mine also and coment, rate it and subscribe to it?! I already did it to yours! If you can't no problem!
Fullpowermarketing 2 years ago
Through global free trade, we'll get these great results like the extrapolation chart. But, what's ironic is as soon as we're making progress within the parameters of poverty (defined by easily having the means for the necessities of life imo), overpopulation will be some kind of political problem to the gov'ts and they'll start to over-regulate markets and slow down growth once again. You rarely can win with Progressives.
selfrealizedexile 2 years ago
The Globalization critics comments are reinforcing the fact Liberals would rather be poor and equal than rich and unequal. Its not about poverty its about having the necessities of life. From their perspective life is a zero sum game and if they want everyone to have the exactly the same amount of the pie. But if we are to be rewarded according to our abilities and our abilities for what ever reason are distributed unequally the only solution is an unequal one.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
davidmesaaz :
There is more than enough capital in the world ;
World population : less than 7000 billion.
Bill gates :estimates 40 billions,Warren Buffett 37 billions,Carlos Slim Helu & family 35 ,just to name a few personal fortunes (look for the The World's Billionaires) + All the States in the world capitals:Many thousands trillions (at this point you can only get estimates )
So is an oversimplification saying : "...the fact Liberals would rather be poor and equal than rich and unequal."
globalarte 2 years ago
not really, the point is is that wealth growth slows down and asymptotically approaches zero under a regime that doesn't allow the almost unadultered pursuit of profit
selfrealizedexile 2 years ago
secondly, who are you to be in a position to say who gets what?
selfrealizedexile 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
who are you to be in a position to say who gets what? I could say the same thing about you... In a free trade agreements people don't act unless both parties feel that they benefiting from it.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
his right mate huh..... if the rich will giv atlest small per ent of money the dont need poverty can be gone for good from world huh
martini9799 1 year ago
Bud the average salary in the world is $2000. So are you willing to tax those that make 10x or around $20,000 the world's average salary with a 70% tax rate. Are you willing to give half or more of your salary to help the worlds poor? Your not greedy are you? You can happily live on $2000 while the government takes the rest so you can help the worlds poor can't you?
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
ok so u saying an averge salry its like 2000 dolrs a month right?yes im not greede im happy to give most of it to poor im not a rich man bth i will share wth them for sure
martini9799 1 year ago
Not $2000 per month $2000 per YEAR. You get 2000 a year $166 a month and you give $18,000 to the poor.
if you make more than $2000 a YEAR than yes you are a rich man. That means that you make more than half the people in this world.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
ok i dnt get it right bfre im not a rich person im making around 400 dllrs maybe a month huh both what i said bfre i tht about tht richest class the erning a lot of money so the can shere some small percent wyh a poor right.....
martini9799 1 year ago
@martini9799 I don't think that you get it... Your rich and until you want to live on $166 a month stop complaining about them.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
im not complaning mate tht a fact im not rich person im just simple guy both i wuld l;ike to change few things in tht crueal world i herd tht if every wrking person giv just a DOLLAR a month in europe and states it will be no poverty and hunger at all it is so diffcult????its not both fact its lot of people just dont care i wsh to bevery rich so i can spend all my fortune on poor kids and homless
martini9799 1 year ago
@martini9799 The solution is not redistributing existing wealth or giving money from the have to the have nots. The solution is to give the poor a solution to create their own wealth and not just receive handouts from others. We have given Africa trillions of dollars in foreign aid but many African countries are just as poor as they were a century ago. The solution is not as simple as giving money from the have to the have nots.
davidmesaaz 1 year ago
ur right tht a fact bcse bilions of dollars are donated to thir world countries allredy both still if we can we need to help to the poor we cant be selfish it can change a lot of things in 3rd world countries
martini9799 1 year ago
If there is more than enough capital in the world why don't we start with the top 5%?
As it is right now anyone in the west making 20k makes 10x as much as the "average" Human.and is in the top 5% So lets tax those in the top 5% with a 40-91% tax brackets. But generally when liberals hear this option they want to redistribute some one else income rather than their own.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
tht good idea mate to tax this greede bustards huh..... tht its a good solution i think bth still tht informations are very optymistic huh poverty it slowly dissapering from world.... hope one day will go for good and all people will have a good lives God bless
martini9799 1 year ago
The solution is not to redistribute several poverty advocates such as Mohamed Yunus think that redistribution efforts such as the World Bank and other foreign aid programs would have a better result by literally throwing money out a plane.
We need to grow the pie not redistribute it.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Your comments still extremists
"throwing money out a plane." I was talking about basics needs ; education,food,home,clothes.
Of course...for rich people to prevail pour people must exist .
The solution is EDUCATION !
globalarte 2 years ago
Well Asia has not received the foreign aid for basic needs but Africa has. Trade in Asia has brought billions of people out of poverty and has provided the basic needs of the people and then some. According to the UN the number of people living in extreme poverty has been reduced from 40% to 25% since 1980.
But aid has created a cycle of dependency in Africa enriched those at the top and put the continent further in debt. So yes the money has been squandered and it would better to throw out.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Asia has not received the foreign aid to the degree that Africa has.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Now we are talking ...
Give a man a fish; you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish; and you have fed him for a lifetime. "
" Teach a man to sell fish and he eats steak. (unknown)
.
Teach a man how to use the Net and he'll learn a lot on YouTube : >)
globalarte 2 years ago
But if he prevented from selling the fish to a smaller population through taxes and regulations you sell less fish. But if fish sellers can sell to a global market consumers will pay less for the fish and can buy more fish and producers can sell more fish to more people.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Your comments are just extremists.
Nobody is saying we should have exactly the same (what are you talking about?).
I just don't like the way that the gap between :
marginal poor starving to death uneducated and The Mega Rich.
Theres more than enough capital to prevent hunger,and lots of diseases .
Theres more than enough capital in the world to cover the basics needs
like a home, clothes or education.
But what do i know...i'm just a carpenter who happen to like humans.
globalarte 2 years ago
LOL, excuse me, but did you account for inflation? What difference does it make if more ppl make over a dollar, when that dollar buys less goods?
mephistodood82 2 years ago
LOL, excuse me, Look at the video info. The very first line gives you your answer... jeez reading is fundamental.
Anthonyz89 2 years ago
Search for US DEBT FORMULA to know the truth about america
eliasmouawad 2 years ago
sterilise these ppl
mathewjohn5174 2 years ago
Perhaps this is naive of me, but over the thirty-year span presented does the inflation and depreciation of the dollar not account for the shift of the impoverished population across the outdated poverty line, at least somewhat? If you are knowledgeable of this topic, please reply, I am quite interested.
Shikarta 2 years ago
has it says in the description it is set for inflation. as for the depreciation of the dollar, currency is relative. Depending on what currency you use. It was probably all averaged out over all currencies. Sooo it would be difficult to say if it had any effect on the poverty level.
achmedthedeadterror5 2 years ago
The video info states that inflation is accounted for.
Anthonyz89 2 years ago
Why is it so hard to believe that poverty is being reduced? 200 years ago Europeans and Americans were poorer than modern Africans, and most were subsistence farmers living in mud huts. Half were dead by the age of 5. If Europe and the US can do it, why can't the rest of the world?
havocgate 2 years ago
Hans Rosling said that over the past century Africa has made the most progress economically. They never measure where they were before capitalism they just lump people in rich and poor countries. In less than a century African went from a medival state economically to where Europe and the west is 100 years ago.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Most people are FORCED (by the circunstances) to work for others .
Lots of people only make enough money to eat and pay rent.
So they have to keep their (minimum wage) jobs .
If you don't have many choices this is a kind of SLAVERY.
globalarte 2 years ago
Aren't you forced by circumstances to work? Working and providing for yourself was what you called life before the creation of the welfare state. As we have seen time and time again. Low wage low skill jobs in rich countries are often high wages high skill in poor countries. The jobs creating shoes for MNC have better wages jobs and working conditions than native businesses. Their hiring people increases the demand for labor and wages.
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
And ?...(explain what do you mean ,based on my comment )
Maybe you misunderstood what i've said about "forced'' to work.
globalarte 2 years ago
i can enjoy the sun shine without ignoring the fact that that all life is ever endangerede from the point of its beginning :D. i f we stop beeing excited about all the good and bad in the world we can change things to how we like them more easily ;)...peace!
dasdeck 2 years ago
Uh....this is before obummer got the checkbook!
rebeccababich 2 years ago
A big mistake in this video is that it makes a global povertyline while the living conditions in the countries on the world you of course they are very different to each other...
It think it would be cleverer to make at least a dynamic poverty line because so you can get very easy a wrong picture of income when you don't add the inflation as a global factor...
You can't say the people get richer when the inflation overrun them...
CrapDealer111 2 years ago
The earths dying, politics as failed.
bagsitfirst 2 years ago
What's the music in the background?
MacOSY 2 years ago
Rocky - Eye of the Tiger in symphonic
Profairpotm 2 years ago
omg it's the Eye of the Tiger ^_^
Bobalithmiss1 2 years ago
Definitions! here you go!
(a) The Rich, Privileged, and Fashionable Social Class.
(b) The Socially Dominant Members of a Community. (interesting ja?)
according to the "free-dictionary"
moob744 2 years ago
moob744, I see that you are skeptical about global warming. This shows that you are not a huge second-hander. Why then, do you accept the dogma of altruism and unselfishness? You might try reading something by Ayn Rand someday. Just a suggestion.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
1 dollar in 1970 is not the same as 1 dollar in 2000. tell me if im wrong.
R0mp3l 2 years ago
Comment removed
MacOSY 2 years ago
Amazing is it not? Capitalism is the world's most effective and moral system- and it also happens to be the most hated.
CommodoreV 2 years ago 2
Excuse me, EFFECTIVE? and so recent events in this Great Moral System are merely a glitch? corrected by the equally charitable means of the Bailouts? Capitalism is only popular with the Masses because of Advertising,Propaganda,as the Great Thatcher proclaimed "There is no such thing as Society",and Behold! it was so...as whole Industries were sold-off to Foreign Investment, Whole communities were to decline.Amazing?
moob744 2 years ago
The recent events were clearly and indisputably caused by government intervention. Also, I would not say that capitalism is popular with the masses. In my experience, I have heard nothing but hatred against the free markets. And yes, there is no such thing, or rather should not be, such a thing as "society"- if by "society" you mean a system in which the individual is subordinated to the somehow morally superior "common good" of the collective.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
No, it was the non-intervention and non-regulation and pig-at-the-trough-greed, pure and simple that caused the pack of cards to fall. Yes, the "pack" is being re-shuffled and "new hands" being dealt-out to stabilize things, but what does that achieve? Besides I thought the Moral High Ground belonged to such as keep the whole charade going?As for Society-please-let's agree on at least the definition of the word?
moob744 2 years ago
To simply declare that this economic crisis was a consequence of greed is absurd, I'm sorry. There were just too many governmental factors that contributed to this mess. To simply evade and refuse to look at them is more than unintelligent, it is morally unjust. Also, people should not be so willing to trade a little liberty to gain a little security. As Ben said: "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security, deserves neither and loses both."
CommodoreV 2 years ago
Also, I would like to say something else. You use the expression about a pig eating out of the trough. I would like to use the same expression. If a pig is eating out of a trough, it is implied that there is food in the trough. But, where does that food come from? Obviously, somebody had to put that food there in the first place. That food had to be produced. Capitalist nations are the same way. We enjoy our high standard of living because we are productive, and enjoy the fruits of out labor.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
"We enjoy our high standard of living because we are productive, and enjoy the fruits of out labor. "
You are productive because you exploit the cheap labour and resources of third world countries, by the results of historical imperialism. But you can keep telling yourself it's just because you think you are better.
jortylbro 2 years ago
Oh give me a break. The zero-sum fallacy is always at the base of all socialist logic. What people in the third-world want more than anything is to work in foreign sweatshops and factories. There are numerous examples of this, both now and in history. Your problem is that you do not believe human achievement is possible. You believe that whatever accomplishment is made, has to be done by taking away from another source. That is a terrible, destructive mindset.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
I did not make a zero-sum fallacy. But if you are going to ignore the imperialism, war, and foreign policies that created the conditions that Western nations exploit, of course you are not seeing things in context. If given that a man is holding a gun to your head, is he being generous by offering you a chance to save your life if you turn over your wallet?
jortylbro 2 years ago
The only ones with the power to hold a gun to anyone's head are governments. The only "private" companies that could carry this out would have to exist in a mixed economy, where government interference in the private sector could create corporate jailhouses, where the employees are certainly exploited. This, however, is impossible in a 100% capitalist world. Also, wars are detrimental to a free market. History has shown that all major wars have been fought by totalitarian regimes, not free ones.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
In World War II, both Germany and Russia would dismantle entire factories in conquered countries and ship them back to the "Fatherland". The United States, on the other hand, GAVE weapons, lent factories, and other assets to its various allies. In socialist/totalitarian countries, force is the only way to produce anything, since the producers have already packed their bags and left the country. Capitalist nations can produce within their own borders, socialist nations do not.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
Capitalist nations depend on exploiting the cheap labour and resources of other nations. They may not absorb it into a controlled economy as socialist nations would, but they aren't isolated as you seem to imply they are.
Unless you can give me an example of a self-sufficient free market economy without any major inequalities or problems, I don't think you can use capitalist nations as good examples of the benefits of capitalism.
jortylbro 2 years ago
You can't deny that Capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people all around the world. The degree to which a society embraces capitalism is the degree to which it flourishes. How do you explain Hong Kong, India, and former USSR nations? No other economic system has raised living standards as fast as Capitalism. That being said, there are no truly capitalist nations today. The major economic problems discussed today originated in government offices and bureaucracies.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
"You can't deny that Capitalism has raised the living standards of billions of people all around the world."
"All economies today are either socialist, or on the road there."
How are you reconciling these two contradictory statements? You claim it is capitalism that has raised the living standard yet all economies are mixed so where is your proof that "pure capitalism" is beneficial and government interference is restraining that?
jortylbro 2 years ago
There is no contradiction, you just misunderstood me. I put that the DEGREE TO WHICH a society embraces capitalism is the degree to which it survives and prospers. More capitalistic nations are the most successful, and the least capitalistic nations are the least successful. That fact is both explicit in my comment, and implicit in everything else I have said.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
Capitalism has nothing to do with it. Living standards have been raised because of technology, especially in medicine and agriculture.
havocgate 2 years ago
How do you explain the Soviet Union? They were technologically advanced, and yet there was still famine. Also, technology is no good unless it is used. Someone might make a light bulb in a fascist/socialist nation, but then what? It would just sit there. We average people are the ones to reap the many benefits of capitalism.
CommodoreV 2 years ago 3
How can I give you an example of a self-sufficient market economy if they don't yet exist? All economies today are either socialist, or on the road there. If you want to see what it might have been like, do a little reading on the 19th century. In 1750, England's population was six million, nine million is 1800, and twelve million in 1820. This is what I call a population explosion, which is only possible through an increased standard of living.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
And why do capitalist nations depend on exploiting labor in other nations? The only "exploiting" going on is international trade, but I would hardly call that exploitation. Trade benefits everybody, from the billionaire capitalist to the lowly peasant. Everybody walks away with a little more than they had before.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
Maybe you are referring to women and children working in factories and sweatshops. First, let me say that, no, the conditions are not good. BUT, they are better than any other work, and they should not be judged by our modern standards. Factory work is much easier for women than any other "man's" work, and the children likewise. Child labor will stop when it is economical for it to be so, that is- when the parents make enough to support their children.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
Once again, being given such a choice within a state-capitalist framework is not necessarily a choice of freedom. Child labour is unethical in itself, and so the actions of those create the conditions that require others to result to child labour are acting immorally.
You are not advocating freedom, you are advocating being a slave to the market, which by the way needs to be reinforced by governments. It also requires violent international affairs to keep the market "free".
jortylbro 2 years ago
There are no slaves to the market? Who are slaves? What one group of people on the entire planets are slaves to the capitalistic system? Please give me the name of one person so I can send them a check. Capitalism is the free system, all others involve some force of government involvement, and government is an agency of force, not of freedom. Also, before there was capitalism, people payed using human beings as currency (the real slavery).
CommodoreV 2 years ago
Slavery in the US was wiped out because it became uneconomical for the South to continue using slave labor while the north was mass producing things 200% faster and more efficient.
CommodoreV 2 years ago
"Capitalist nations depend on exploiting the cheap labour and resources of other nations. "
That sounds like something they taught you in school and you take it like fact.
panther9mm 2 years ago
If someone gave you a job, would you claim that they are exploiting you for your cheap labour?
panther9mm 2 years ago
Nike marketing plan.
We make the trainers for 2 dollars then ship them and advertise them as Cool and sell them for 400% above cost price. Then Nike keep the money and sue's any one that stands in there way.
Nike getting the world work for fuck all.
But dont worry the factories in Africa will poison the local drinking water as well.
Blunder1248 2 years ago
They make them for 2 dollars where? 2 dollars in a poor country is a whole heck of a lot of more money than 2 dollars in the US.
Like Paul Krugman said the greatest beneficiaries of low unrestricted labor are the poor themselves...
davidmesaaz 2 years ago
Can you give me an example of ANY NATION IN HISTORY without problems? If you want perfection, you're on the wrong fucking planet.
havocgate 2 years ago
If that's how you define mixed economies, that includes just about every nation-state to ever exist. I find it kind of odd how you are defending institutions like sweat shops which exist in the world economy of government-protected corporations, but then say you oppose the government that allows those conditions to exist.
Wars may be detrimental to the freedom of the market, but they are not necessarily detrimental to the corporations who have monopolies over the market.
jortylbro 2 years ago
Good Video!!
VERY IMPORTANT!
but still the inflation of prices can alterate the numbers and the value of them!
Is not the same what you could buy with a dollar in 1970's than what you could buy NOW
still it's a good outcome!
wroomann 2 years ago
Numbers are already adjusted for inflation and Purchase Power Parity. So that you can compare them.
Results might surprise you but it like this.
I you wouldnt count in the inflation whole comparison would be useless. Because approximatly what cost $1 in 1970 would cost $5.29 in 2007.
AlexBratt 2 years ago
More perspective:
The income gap between the fifth of the world's population in the wealthiest countries and the poorest fifth of the world's population was 74 to one in 1997, up from 60 to one in 1990, and 30 to one in 1960.
ZakeD3 2 years ago
At some point, the people who choose to produce babies they can not feed, clothe or educate, are responsible for their actions. We all make conscious choices in life. How can I feel pity for people who crank out child after child in the most destitute of places? Breeding poverty, is not an accident. You either have self-control, or you don't. Only a fool assumes responsibility for the stupidity/selfishness/shortsightedness of others. If you cannot feed, don't breed!
tutorturtle 2 years ago
This is a misleading video.............
ClarksonsinUSA 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yah, your chart is moving into the right direction... ASSUMING THESE RATES OF GROWTH CAN CONTINUE FOREVER!!
But the fact is... if each person around the world would be able to consume as much as the average american we would riquire an Earth about 6 times bigger just to keep up with the rate of consumption without further growth!!
jrvillela 2 years ago
Your video it's based on the "bigger cake fallacy": "What do you prefer: equal pieces of a smaller cake, or such a big but unequally distributed cake so that even its smallest piece is bigger than a piece of the other cake?"
Well, I have news for you: THE CAKE CAN'T KEEP GROWING!!
jrvillela 2 years ago
Comment removed
jrvillela 2 years ago
Comment removed
mysticvizzerd 2 years ago
One person's poverty does not translate into a right to demand another person's honestly earned wealth.
tutorturtle 2 years ago
Assuming they earned it honestly, but...
maybe you don't know about the Quandts, Thyssen, Krupp, Slim, the Russian Oligarchs, Gates, etc... etc... etc...
jrvillela 2 years ago
Unfortunately this world is so globalized that your wealth is more or less built on other people's misfortune.
ahs18065 2 years ago
I can't believe the creator of this video spent all that time crunching numbers without having the understanding that more dollars don't mean more wealth!
If; and that's a big IF; each individual on the planet is enjoying greater consumption than they were, say, 30 years ago; the only thing that can be attributed too in the capacity of technology to take resources from the earth at a faster rate than the system earth can replenish itself.
More dollars simply means more green-dyed paper.
18820828 2 years ago
I can't believe the creator of this video spent all that time crunching numbers without first understanding that more dollars for more people don't mean more wealth for more people!
If each individual on the planet is enjoying greater consumption than they were, say, 30 years ago; the only thing in which that could be attributed too is the the increased efficiencies of technology to take more resources from the earth than the earth can replenish naturally.
18820828 2 years ago
The amounts given are adjusted for inflation and currency. That means that in 1974, the "$1" line is equivalent purchasing power to today's "$1"; it's the cost of, say, a candy bar or a sack of potatoes. To put that in perspective, 8% more of the world can afford a sack of potatoes per day today than could in 1974 or whatever. That is a measurable positive gain; it means that many, many more people today can afford enough food that they do not starve. I hope that makes sense to you.
Nphyx 2 years ago
the poverty line as it is defined by the US and many other gov'ts is based on an income number.
conservatarian57 2 years ago
What is the name of this song?
rockymountainwest 2 years ago
eye of the tiger from rocky
vorbeigehende 2 years ago
Most people do not even know the world is bankrupt. Money is only generated through debt, therefore, generating more money within the system can only serve to make the situation worse. The worst affected, the Africans for example, are not staving due to scarcity of local resources, they are poor through lack of buying power. The world needs to learn to love itself enough to realize that we deserve to be fed. Even if that food has to be created for free through volunteering and nanotechnology.
3thought 2 years ago
and you can make services like the national healht much more efficient by turning many of its functions over to private companies private service providers and still provide good quality
"free" service for all British people
let me send you some links.
billyysands 2 years ago
I agree. Although, it would be a shame if privatization of the health service becomes as bad as it was with the rail service. It can often result in corruption. Some things are so important they need to operate outside capitalism.
At least until capitalism can realign with nature.
3thought 2 years ago
the governement is inefficient public transport and health might be exceptions
social services everyone depends on should be at least regualted if not state run BUT THE DUTCH PRIVATIZED THEIR
health system with alowances
if you are poor and cant pay your regualted premium? the governement will
pick it up..but it seems to work well for the dutch no waiting period for operations good quality for all and affordable
an average rate is 100 euro
for a single individual per month
billyysands 2 years ago
Your absolutely right thanks :). Good example. And I guess if the issue of corruption in the world is sorted, as it should already not exist, the premiums will go down and the standards carry on improving.
3thought 2 years ago
Well at least Rich people get Richer. Gotta invest ppl! I think the root of the problem is that all the poor people don't know how to diversify their portfolio. /sarcasm
TaaNaa 2 years ago
Comment removed
shwooddotcom 2 years ago
nice music but otherwise pretty much a waste of a click. for one thing that lovely lil graph 'timeline' shows that granted the 'poverty line and under' may be a few less. (1.4 to 1.2 billion in one transition) but the thing i noticed that remains the same if not worse is the peak in what i would call 'damn near poor' nearish the left 'poverty line' yet across the scale that smaller side ridge of rich more or less remains unleveled, there is a major disproportion within 'wealth' distribution...
Peachypadgett 2 years ago
Countries have cured poverty completly by not counting the poor as people.
navysealtm12 2 years ago 2
so what you are saying is the free market and globalizatiojn has reduced world poverty not made it worse? i agee i am an ex socialist and third way advocate
market capitalism sometimes needs to be regulated but it is the solution not the problem
billyysands 2 years ago
I agree with your capitalism statement. That's why the G20 protests were allowed to seem anti-capitalist because the real problem is the size or existence of government. I need to study socialism. Because from what I have already have learnt, it appears to me to be just another form of herd management and not a honest system of governing for the people.
3thought 2 years ago
It important to have a bit of history most oscialist werent evil or stupid they truelly meant the best of intent but the road to hell is paved with good intent,by the end of the 70s governements over taxed and overegulated, Britians labur party since Atlee who was a good bloke after all
he started the welfare state and the national health service BUT
the nationalized industries and hix taxes cripppled britian the irony is you can raise more for services by lowering the tax rate
billyysands 2 years ago
does anybody know the name of the song?
jezreel69laadan 2 years ago
Eye of the Tiger - But looking for that simple version too!? - Name of the Song - Version ???
kaufmann789 2 years ago
ohh yeah you're right, the problem is that it is slightly different and i couldnt recognize it but I actually liked this version.Thank you very much for helping XD
jezreel69laadan 2 years ago
Do you know the name of this version?
jezreel69laadan 2 years ago
"Eye of the Tiger - But looking for that simple version too!? - Name of the Song - Version ??? "
This version doesn't have vocals though... and sounds purely instrumental. I can't find it anywhere.
rockymountainwest 2 years ago
Eye of the Tiger" is a song performed by American rock band Survivor from the album Eye of the Tiger, released in 1982. It was written at the request of Sylvester Stallone for the film Rocky III. The original mix of the song, heard in the film, features tiger growls, though the single omits them
billyysands 2 years ago
Have you factored in Inflation?!
Yes INFLATION means that $1 in 2009 is worth much less than $1 in 1970. Hence people haven't really escaped poverty at all.
Besides, your graph shows people moving to just past the $1 mark. Even if they received $5 a day, when you account for inflation this is a loss, not a gain.
GuessTheSound 2 years ago
They don't even use US dollars in those countries. What you do is compare purchasing power against a today's $1 worth of some basket of consumer goods in America. That's how you compare GDP between countries and ages.
Check "price index" in wikipedia.
picapauengracado 2 years ago 2
greatestiron 2 years ago
Nice summary!
Does anyone has it with portuguese subtitles??
Thanks!
caveden 2 years ago
step into the sunshine... i'd like to... but......IS $1 IN 1970 WORTH THE SAME AS IN 2015? I don't think so... i agree the picture might be getting better... but overall... hmmm..if u take into account inflation.. not so sure
seljukhan 2 years ago
and the value of their money may be lower so to buy something worth 10$ in here it might cost 20$
kingpopaul 2 years ago
the rich own the capitol and exploit the poor. that is the problem. if there were fairness then poverty would cease
garybatesrsc 2 years ago
commie alert!
danoftherepublic 2 years ago
most of the problem lies in wealth not income. If you have to spend all your income to survive wherever you live then how much money you make a day means shit. if a large majority of people are making a small percentage of the income they still have to compete with one another for the available resources. an increase in income over the years does not necessarily mean an increase in purchasing power. wealth is relative.
garybatesrsc 2 years ago
The graphic is showing real income. Those countries don't even use dollars.
picapauengracado 2 years ago
It is truly amazing how so many comments fail to understand GAPMINDER
PADRAEG 2 years ago
If there were free markets and low taxes, this problem would probably not occur (unless you live under a bridge on purpose).
remilonoy 3 years ago
Does this video take inflation into account?
If not... this means nothing
Vitringur 3 years ago
it clearly says that it does....dumbass
heroe2006 3 years ago
o what do we owe this improvement? Capitalism, according to the U.N. Free trade is rightly recognized as the engine of global prosperity in recent years. In 1981, 40% of the world's population lived on less than $1 a day. Now that percentage is only 25%, adjusted for inflation. And at current rates of growth, "world poverty will be cut in half between 2000 and 2015" -- which is arguably one of the greatest triumphs in human history.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
Very good point. People say what about those people working in sweat shops. However, the people in those sweat shops now make way more money and work safer jobs. Not to mention the employees like it better. When a nation outsources more jobs are created both abroad and at home. The examples of real capitalism can be seen in Hong Kong. Sure there are poor people, but the poor live great lives and everyone has a chance to succeed.
wwwdotLPdotorg 3 years ago
I think its horrible that people have to work in such poor conditions. But multinational corporations are the solution and not the cause of low wages and poor working conditions. Foreign corporations have higher wages and better working conditions than domestic producers. This pressure forcing the all domestic manufacturers to improve working conditions or lose their workers to the multinationals.
davidmesaaz 3 years ago
I couldn't agree more!
wwwdotLPdotorg 3 years ago
You're missing a vital source of wealth though - capital. Capital belongs to the land owners (the multi-nationals) as opposed to the people who create the bulk of that capital (workers). Sure they get their wage crumbs, but what about their stake in the capital they create? This is why capitalism is unsustainable - real wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, simply because all that labour is their "private property".
epiphany55 3 years ago
In the united states, people (mainly immigrant) worked for terrible wages in sweat shops. However they saved their small wages and began to buy stuff. Soon we needed sales agents and many people to help sell what people could now buy. Now that more and more people can buy products we created a middle class of wealthier people. We now created a middle class in a poor society. Look at Hong Kong as an example and industrializing Britain both show the same results.
wwwdotLPdotorg 3 years ago
Yes but the question is sustainability. Look at what is happening to the middle class now, as more and more capital is monopolised and wealth concentrated. Things may be rosy today, but heaven forbid we ignore 50 - 100 years down the line. Purchasing power will dwindle among the consumer class as this model perpetuates. Many economists are now realising this, and have warned people of the conflict between creeping monopoly and labour.
epiphany55 3 years ago
The middle class has access to more items than ever before. Poverty condition in the United States continue to get much better. 40% of America's poorest have cars. We see that the price of everything in amount of time need to acquire the item has gone down significantly. America's working poorest give the most money to charity than any other group.
wwwdotLPdotorg 3 years ago 3
Imported items, yes. That's just the surface reality of it. Without cheap imported goods, and capitalists driving down the cost of labour in occupied nations, Americans wouldn't have enough purchasing power to buy back their own production.
The squeezing effects of neo-lib capitalism are being disguised cleverly and desperately now. The prosperity is apparent, but it's built on a house of cards, with two interests working against each other - the labourer and the capitalist.
epiphany55 3 years ago
If someone is willing to work cheaper then I'm happy to have them be the ones working. If it is cheaper to make something in China then who wins? The Chinese person has more labor and money and the American now has a product and can use his money to buy something else. When we outsource out labor more jobs are created because of the cheaper labor causing an increase demand. That is why many outsourcing companies like the software industry are expanding overseas and in America.
wwwdotLPdotorg 3 years ago
But you see they're not always "willing". This is the fundamental point that neo-liberals overlook. The current model allows multi-nationals with immense capital holdings to buy out land (property) for ridiculously cheap in nations that have little democratic power in the world trade councils. It's not just about China, although I'm sure the Chinese labourers would rather the capital they create be put back into their community funds, rather than paying off minority shareholders.
epiphany55 3 years ago