Thanks to capitalism, global poverty is at its lowest rate in history

[Wilikon]

The history of capitalism, as portrayed in academia and among much of the media, is a sad story. It's one of smokestacks, sweatshops, child labor, robber barons, social stratification and general exploitation of workers.

But this amazing chart, put together by Max Roser, a fellow at the Institute for New Economic Thinking at Oxford University's Martin School, tells a much different story — one of industrialization being associated with a rapid decline in poverty.

In 1820, according to data compiled by Roser*, the share of the global population living in poverty was 94 percent while 84 percent lived in "extreme" poverty. By 1992, the poverty rate had dropped to 51 percent, while the "extreme" poverty rate had dropped to 24 percent. Using a different measure of international poverty, the rate has dropped from 53 percent in 1981 to 17 percent in 2011 – representing the most rapid reduction in poverty in world history.

"In the past only a small elite lived a life without poverty," Roser explains. "Since the onset of industriali[z]ation – and as a consequence of this, economic growth — the share of people living in poverty started decreasing and kept on falling ever since."

This chart is one of many fascinating visualizations on Roser's site Our World in Data, which I highly recommend checking out.

*Note from Roser:

"The share of people of living in poverty and extreme poverty is taken from Bourguignon and Morrison (2002) and 'the poverty lines were calibrated so that poverty and extreme poverty headcounts in 1992 coincided roughly with estimates from other sources.' And in footnote they say 'these definitions correspond to poverty lines equal to consumption per capita of $2 and $1 a day, expressed in 1985 PPP.'

To this I added the share of people living below the international poverty line which, since the revision in 2008, is $1.25 at 2005 purchasing-power parity (PPP). This data is from the World Bank and is available here – for the period 1981-2011. The revisions in the definition of the poverty line and the PPP adjustment make the poverty figures not comparable to earlier data – to illustrate this I have plotted both series for the time from 1981 to 1992. The World Bank data was downloaded in January 2015."


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/amazing-chart-shows-thanks-to-capitalism-global-poverty-is-at-its-lowest-rate-in-history/article/2562224?custom_click=rss

[DooMAD]

Since not everywhere in the world operates under a capitalist system, there's no certainty that we can give capitalism all the credit.  I'm sure it's pretty easy to make an "amazing" chart to show anything you want when there's no context whatsoever.  And even if this is accurate, it's still only showing an improvement in extreme poverty, not poverty in general.  The World Economic Forum, Oxfam and other sources still state that global inequality is increasing overall:

The report states:

    Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
    The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
    The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
    Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
    The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.

[r0ach]

Rename chart to, "effects of outsourcing all jobs in America to China and India"

[Snail2]

This all depends on how they defined poverty and how accurate the data and what conditions they applied. With enough juggling with data, definitions and conditions anyone can prove anything.

[Aggressor66]

Worldwide poverty will not end, but efforts to alleviate it will stall. The reason why is the greed of many at the top. It is in their self-interest to keep labor costs down, so if that means keeping people in shanties, they are OK with that.

Poverty may be declining worldwide, but in America it is rising.

[(oYo)]

Isn't it amazing how bullshit stuff is more believable if you can make a chart that appears to supports it? What's funny is that there isn't even an attempt to show any correlating data on capitalism in the chart the OP posted. It is quite obvious (as shown by the graphic below) that the decrease in pirates is the true cause for a decrease in poverty as well as the increase in global temp.

Studies continue to show proof, as shown in the graphic below, that the decline in the number of pirates worldwide has resulted in an increase in global temperature.

The discovery was first made by Einstein which lead to his famous 'Theory of Pirativity'. Using his formula {Pirates/Global Temperature=Flying Spaghetti Monster}, scientists (and atheists) around the world concur that a decrease in the pirate population is the direct cause for global warming.

He also proved that mountains, trees and midgets were the first things to exist on the planet, with his lesser known formula {mountain+trees+midget=FSM}, thereby inadvertently disproving the accounts of 'Genesis', as depicted by Phil Collins in one of his greatest works, 'The Bible'.

[Lethn]

Look, even I lean towards capitalism most of all, but this is a heaping pile of bullshit, we all know another crash is coming and it doesn't matter how much they manipulate the numbers by adding in drugs and prostitution to the GDPs it's not going to change anything. I disagree with the anti-capitalists here fiercely about capitalism itslf being evil, because I do believe capitalism in it's purest form has been completely corrupted by central banking, I don't think anyone here remembers or knows what a truly free market looks like.

[Beliathon]

Rename chart to, "effects of outsourcing all jobs in America to China and India"

QFT. If you want to understand what's going on with capitalism today, it's called economic inversion. Basically that means that the capitalists are abandoning the expensive labor of western Europe and the US in favor of ultra cheap labor in places with terrible labor laws such as China, India, Mexico, and Bangladesh. Dr. Wolff will explain it very well.

Thing is, the western world isn't going to tolerate being economically knocked back 300 years into third world societies, which is why revolutionary momentum is building everywhere, and Europe is already on the brink of collapse. The capitalists got too greedy this time, they bit off more than they could chew.

Look, even I lean towards capitalism most of all, but this is a heaping pile of bullshit, we all know another crash is coming and it doesn't matter how much they manipulate the numbers by adding in drugs and prostitution to the GDPs it's not going to change anything.

Yep.

I disagree with the anti-capitalists here fiercely about capitalism itslf being evil

I for one would never argue that capitalism is "evil", how childish. Capitalism is the best and most advanced means to distribute resources that humanity has ever produced. It's also some 400 years old and beginning to show it's age. Every dominant system is the best system until it begins to die, even feudalism was far less brutal than the barbarism which preceded it. When a system begins to fail, and capitalism clearly is, that's when society must begin to formulate a new system, always less brutal and more compassionate than the one before.

Capitalism is the comatose grandparent on life support. The time has come to let go. The longer we deny this reality, the more suffering we will inflict upon ourselves.

[Snail2]

...and what comes after capitalism? All of the idealists and naive daydreamers are talking about a new more just, more equal, more peaceful and more sustainable society. I'm afraid they are all wrong.

[Wilikon]

Worldwide poverty will not end, but efforts to alleviate it will stall. The reason why is the greed of many at the top. It is in their self-interest to keep labor costs down, so if that means keeping people in shanties, they are OK with that.

Poverty may be declining worldwide, but in America it is rising.

In America it is rising... Because the USA is moving away from its original free market principles by electing, over and over again, people allergic to the ideal of the American Constitution.

[bryant.coleman]

Population growth is slowing (with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa), and that is the main reason why the poverty rates are going down. Right now, wealth is increasing at a rate higher than that of human population growth.

Both capitalism and communism have their own benefits. In the former USSR, no one went hungry or without medical treatment, but there were very few wealthy people. In modern Russia, there are a lot of people who live in abject poverty, but the majority of the nation's citizens have grown wealthy thanks to capitalism.

[countryfree]

Population growth is slowing (with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa), and that is the main reason why the poverty rates are going down. Right now, wealth is increasing at a rate higher than that of human population growth.

Both capitalism and communism have their own benefits. In the former USSR, no one went hungry or without medical treatment, but there were very few wealthy people. In modern Russia, there are a lot of people who live in abject poverty, but the majority of the nation's citizens have grown wealthy thanks to capitalism.

You forgot to say that the Russian experiment didn't prove to be sustainable. In 1990, the USSR was bankrupt, and it felt apart. That's the best thing about capitalism: its engine is change. It always evolves. A communist country, or the stock market can crash, but capitalism keeps on going.

[Wilikon]

Population growth is slowing (with the exception of Sub-Saharan Africa), and that is the main reason why the poverty rates are going down. Right now, wealth is increasing at a rate higher than that of human population growth.

Both capitalism and communism have their own benefits. In the former USSR, no one went hungry or without medical treatment, but there were very few wealthy people. In modern Russia, there are a lot of people who live in abject poverty, but the majority of the nation's citizens have grown wealthy thanks to capitalism.

I see what you mean. If you could chose between deodorant or a loaf of bread then, technically, no one was starving in ussr. Just a little bit smelly, but nothing like a bit of lemon juice under your armpit would not have solved... That is, after waiting hours after hours in line for that one lemon...


 



Those images are amazing:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2255693/Last-pictures-life-iron-curtain-collapse-USSR.html

[bryant.coleman]

You forgot to say that the Russian experiment didn't prove to be sustainable. In 1990, the USSR was bankrupt, and it felt apart. That's the best thing about capitalism: its engine is change. It always evolves. A communist country, or the stock market can crash, but capitalism keeps on going.

The bankruptcy of the USSR was caused by the following reasons:

1. The non-productive ethnic groups (such as Uzbeks, Azeris.etc) were growing at a rate of 3% per year, and subsidizing them was no longer possible from the earnings of the productive groups.

2. Productive ethnic groups (such as Slavs, Germans and Balts) were growing at just 0.5% per year. Even those ethnic groups which were having very high birth rate (such as the Volga Germans) were not growing in number due to emigration.

3. The Afghan war resulted in huge fiscal deficit to the budget.

4. The high oil prices in 1970s made sure that all other sectors were ignored. When the oil prices dropped in the late 1980s, there was no backup revenue.

As you see, none of these can be attributed to communism.

[coinpr0n]

The problem is whenever the playing field is flattened (financially speaking) dominance must be exerted through force. War is also a big money machine.

[Wilikon]

You forgot to say that the Russian experiment didn't prove to be sustainable. In 1990, the USSR was bankrupt, and it felt apart. That's the best thing about capitalism: its engine is change. It always evolves. A communist country, or the stock market can crash, but capitalism keeps on going.

The bankruptcy of the USSR was caused by the following reasons:

1. The non-productive ethnic groups (such as Uzbeks, Azeris.etc) were growing at a rate of 3% per year, and subsidizing them was no longer possible from the earnings of the productive groups.

2. Productive ethnic groups (such as Slavs, Germans and Balts) were growing at just 0.5% per year. Even those ethnic groups which were having very high birth rate (such as the Volga Germans) were not growing in number due to emigration.

3. The Afghan war resulted in huge fiscal deficit to the budget.

4. The high oil prices in 1970s made sure that all other sectors were ignored. When the oil prices dropped in the late 1980s, there was no backup revenue.

As you see, none of these can be attributed to communism.

The non-productive ethnic groups Vs The productive ethnic groups: sounds a lot like segregated communism...


 

[bryant.coleman]

The non-productive ethnic groups Vs The productive ethnic groups: sounds a lot like segregated communism...


 

There is a drawback common to both communism and capitalism. If the percentage of parasites / welfare-rats crosses a particular threshold, then the entire system will collapse. It is going to happen in the United States in near future.

[Beliathon]

There is a drawback common to both communism and capitalism. If the percentage of parasites / welfare-rats crosses a particular threshold, then the entire system will collapse. It is going to happen in the United States in near future.

Holy shit we agree! HUZZAH! But yeah, any system which sets up a socioeconomic hierarchy will filter the high IQ sociopaths and other master manipulators to the top. Bad for everyone, even them.

The problem with capitalism is that to win the game, you have to destroy it. Having all the wealth means no one else can participate in economic activity, no one else can play with you.

An awful game model, unsustainable, and wholly incompatible with human nature.

[Wilikon]

The non-productive ethnic groups Vs The productive ethnic groups: sounds a lot like segregated communism...


 

There is a drawback common to both communism and capitalism. If the percentage of parasites / welfare-rats crosses a particular threshold, then the entire system will collapse. It is going to happen in the United States in near future.

If in a family of 4, only one provides for everything then this family will end up cooking, then eating each other. Something that happened in soviet union, north korea, (as in communist systems) a lot.

If the US decides it is a good idea to be apply the same methods then you will get the same result...

[WhatTheGox]

Its constantly being miffed at the system which keeps things evolving.  One day we likely wont need capitalism, until that day i think its healthy to be frustated with it.  Right now its our best option.