Toward the Conquest of World Poverty

Even communists eventually have to make peace with reality.

Progress can often be defined as the stuff that happens while humanity is preoccupied with everything that is going wrong. On the surface, the first decade of the 21st century looks like an ugly parade of terrorism, war and economic convulsion. But in one important sense it stands as possibly the greatest decade in human history. And that's no accident.

Among the most vicious enemies of human welfare is poverty. In a world plagued with limited resources, bad governments and unsound economic policies, it often appears to be an inescapable scourge. Most people paid no attention in 2000 when the United Nations proclaimed the goal of halving the number of earth's inhabitants living in extreme poverty by 2015, compared to 1990.

But way ahead of schedule, the target has already been hit. For the first time since it began tracking, says a new World Bank report, "the data indicate a decline in both the poverty rate and the number of poor in all six regions of the developing world."

In 1981, 70 percent of those in the developing world subsisted on the equivalent of less than $2 a day, and 42 percent had to manage with less than $1 a day. Today, 43 percent are below $2 a day and 14 percent below $1.

"Poverty reduction of this magnitude is unparalleled in history: Never before have so many people been lifted out of poverty over such a brief period of time," write Brookings Institution researchers Laurence Chandy and Geoffrey Gertz.

Just as important as the extent of the improvement is the location: everywhere. In the past there has been improvement in a few countries or a continent. Not this time.

China has continued the rapid upward climb it began three decades ago. India, long a laggard, has shaken off its torpor. Latin America has made sharp inroads against poverty. "For the first time since 1981," says the World Bank, "we have seen less than half the population of sub-Saharan Africa living below $1.25 a day."

The start of most global trends is hard to pinpoint. This one, however, had its big bang in the early 1970s, in Chile. After a socialist government brought on economic chaos, the military seized power in a bloody coup and soon embarked on a program of drastic reform -- privatizing state enterprises, fighting inflation, opening up foreign trade and investment and unshackling markets.

It was the formula offered by economists associated with the University of Chicago, notably Milton Friedman, and it turned Chile into a rare Latin American success. In time, it also facilitated a return to democracy. Chile was proof that freeing markets and curbing state control could generate broad-based prosperity, which socialist policies could only promise.

If that experiment weren't sufficient, it got another try on a much bigger scale when China's Deng Xiaoping abandoned the disastrous policies of Mao Zedong and veered onto the capitalist road. The result was an economic miracle yielding growth rates that averaged 10 percent per year.

The formula was too effective to be ignored. Over the past two decades, poorer nations have dismantled command-and-control methods and given markets greater latitude. Economic growth, not redistribution, has been the surest cure for poverty, and economic freedom has been the key that unlocked the riddle of economic growth.

Over the past 30 years, notes the libertarian Cato Institute in the latest edition of its "Economic Freedom of the World," the average country's economic freedom score has risen from 5.53 (on a 10 scale) to 6.64 -- a significant improvement that has paid off in higher growth and earnings. The evidence indicates a reliable pattern: the freer the economy the faster the growth.

"Nations in the top quartile of economic freedom had an average per-capita GDP of $31,501 in 2009, compared to $4,545 for those nations in the bottom quartile," says Cato. The rate of extreme poverty is 2.7 percent in the top quartile and 41 percent in the bottom one.

Among many people a generation ago -- and among a few today -- free markets and private property were seen as the cause of poverty. But the number of adherents has dwindled in the face of repeated refutation.

The latest cover story in The Economist magazine is: "Cuba hurtles toward capitalism." Cuba! Even communists eventually have to make peace with reality.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tony||

    Even communists eventually have to make peace with reality.

    No, we really don't.

  • ||

    For all their big egalitarian talk, Communist countries are among the most notorious when it came to haves and have-nots. Soviet commissars and Politburo members living like Roman Emperors in their country dachas while collective farmers lived hand to mouth. North Korea: Bolshevik Monarchy. A wealthy dynasty has ruled that country for over 60 years while the workers live like midieval surfs.

  • sarcasmic||

    But at least in that two tiered system everyone on the bottom is equal.
    The lower class doesn't have lower middle, middle, and upper middle class people to envy.
    There is only the political class to envy.
    But unlike capitalism, where you need to have a good idea or work hard in order to get ahead, in communism all you need to do is know the right people.
    Everyone is equal and getting ahead is based upon who you know.
    From a leftist's perspective it's paradise!

  • Suki||

    Wasn't Gorbachev the grandson of gulag prisoners? Income mobility Russian style.

  • Thomas O.||

    Andrew Wilkow (wilkowmajority.com) said it best: "Socialism is for the people, not the Socialist."

  • More Fibertard BULLSHIT||

    Can ya'll quit blowing smoke up my ass?

    sarcasmic|3.29.12 @ 8:31AM
    capitalism, where you need to have a good idea or work hard in order to get ahead


    Fucking PAKISTAN a higher degrees of income mobility than we do in the US.

    Economic Mobility in the U.S. — The Myth
    http://opiniojuris.org/2007/05.....e-reality/

    You Fibertard assholes lie and like and lie and lie.

  • Cytotoxic||

    In Pakistan you can go from poor to extremely poor in no time at all. Income mobility!

  • Jeffersonian||

    Wait, aren't you the guy that says squatting naked in the dark, shivering is a good thing?

    Why would we trust your thoughts on prosperity?

  • TMLutas||

    In case you haven't noticed, in the US we've been calcifying our regulatory system and growing government for decades now. After a time it does take a toll.

  • CITIGROUP PLUTONOMY REPORT||

    For all their big "rising tides float all boats" talk, Capitalist countries are among the most notorious when it came to haves and have-nots. American corporate CEOs and their paid Congressional members living like Roman Emperors in their gated communities while collective farmers lived hand to mouth. America: Plutocracy. A wealthy dynasty has ruled that country for over 60 years while the workers live like medieval serfs.

    What, you never read the CITIGROUP PLUTONOMY REPORT?

    http://rwer.wordpress.com/2012.....y-reports/

    F1Bertard gonna fib, just like a damn Commie.

  • Souxie||

    "the workers live like medieval serfs"

    So besides being eager to demonstrate your lack of understanding of economics, you also want to make the world aware of your complete ignorance of history. Mission accomplished!

  • Suki||

    Great point fake Tony. They continue to this day as if the Soviet Union never fell apart. They shifted to Fascism in China and are being praised for it.

  • FIBertards love FASCISM||

    It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history.

    ~Ludwig von Mises, Liberalism (1927)

  • ||

    "But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as
    something more would be a fatal error."

    Note how the quote in context shows that libertarians don't love fascism.

  • Fascism = emergency makeshift||

    What's not to love about even emergency makeshifts?

    Fibertards love them some fascism.

  • Souxie||

    And doctors LOVE amputations.

  • Obama||

    We are shit for brains....we don't have to do anything.

  • Bill||

    "And among a few today ..."

    I think they all work at my university.

  • ||

    ^Winner!^

  • Suki||

    +1

  • The Theoretician||

    I think they all work at my university.

    I'll guess not a one works as a janitor or in "Buildings and Grounds".

    No, much like Marx himself it will always be about policy and doctrine! "We'll tell the proletariat what to think and how to think it"!

    No, no, no...off thinking big things....simply no time to actually mingle with the rabble.

    Take it away fake Tony(s)!

  • ||

    Steve, do you expect us to just swallow the propaganda?

  • Steve||

    Yes, just like you swallow Obama's offering.

  • ||

    Thew fly in the ointment here is, can we trust the statistics coming out of China? The Chinese government would be following a tradition going back thousands of years if its economic data was mostly fantasy.

  • ||

    Can you trust the "statistics" of any public sector entity or NGOs who seek to curry favor with the king-like Cato?

  • cato||

    u mad bro?

  • Obama||

    I believe you mean curry flavor.

  • ||

    Mike, why is your handle an oxymoron?

  • ||

    I trust NOBODY'S statistics, but I trust those of a Nation that has an unbroken several thousand year tradition of fantasy-driven bureaucratic rule less than most.

  • Libertarian, transg., bisexual||

    Chinese people are certainly better off than in the 1960s.

  • Why do they jump out windows?||

    I hear Southern Plantation owners said that the slaves were better off too.

    Capitalism never changes.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides

  • TMLutas||

    What makes the Foxconn suicides interesting is that in an export driven shop, the suicide rate was so bad it started to resemble the state run sector suicide rate. Panic ensued and Apple has been pressuring Foxconn to clean up its act ever since. I'd love for them to move faster but it appears that they are.

    Seriously, take a look at the national suicide statistics in the PRC. They're horrendous top to bottom.

  • Suki||

    Some on this chatroom say "if you ask the average Chinese person if they are a Communist, they would laugh and say no." I say, what do the people running the place call themselves and who elected them?

  • NotSure||

    I could say the same about America and the people running the place, the vast majority are essentially socialists.

    I once saw survey asking people in different countries what they were, the country with the most percentage people who were communist was in fact France, China was low on the list of communists, probably lower than Americans.

  • Suki||

    We get to vote here. The only China that has a representative government is Taiwan.

  • Realist||

    "We get to vote here." What difference does that make? What is the advantage of letting idiots vote?

  • NotSure||

    Voting does not equate to more capitalism, same as not voting does not equate to more communism. France has a significant communist party that people have voted for in elections.

  • And France is like North Korea||

    dotchaknow

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    Well, they DO have a high regard for genocidal despots and child rapists.

  • ||

    Steve, "libertarian" Cato Institute?

    That ship left the port long ago.

  • ^^ Cultist Schism ^^||

    Fundies all operate the same way.

    Cultic Schismatic Autistic Fibertards in particular.

  • StatistMike||

    Not enough neoConfederate hagiography.

  • HeroicMulatto||

    The belief that poverty can be "conquered" is Marxist/Hegelian "End of History" clap-trap.

    As Robert Potter argues, there will always be those who will ignore the successes of liberty and the free market. The collective ideology of the countries of The Organization of the Islamic Conference come to mind, as well as African and Asian Third-Worldism.

  • BakedPenguin||

    The belief that poverty can be "conquered" is Marxist/Hegelian "End of History" clap-trap.

    This. Unless people evolve to where they can feed by photosynthesis and live in any weather conditions, wealth will still have to be created.

  • Souxie||

    And the argument can be that with economic growth, so much wealth will be created that even its scraps will be sufficient to eliminate poverty.

  • Old Poodle told me...||

    We don't have liberty and free markets.

    Which way is it, pal?

  • Libertarian, transg., bisexual||

    The narrative from the left is about how we're all getting poorer. Just listen to Elizabeth Warren--The Two Income Trap details at length how badly off Americans are today compared to 30 years ago.

    I've always suspected the left of secretly hating poor people.

  • The Left||

    I've always suspected the left of secretly hating poor people.

    They're a necessary evil.

  • I Must Be Wrong||

    I have more wealth than I did 30 years ago. I must be doing something wrong.

  • sarcasmic||

    You're not paying enough taxes.

    The fact that you have more than someone else means that you haven't paid your fair share.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Just listen to Elizabeth Warren"

    Ugh. Do I have to? I got more than my fill of feudalistic "Social Contracts" from Robespierre.

  • Pistol Pete||

    It was the formula offered by economists associated with the University of Chicago, notably Milton Friedman, and it turned Chile into a rare Latin American success. In time, it also facilitated a return to democracy. Chile was proof that freeing markets and curbing state control could generate broad-based prosperity, which socialist policies could only promise.

    BUT, BUT, BUT, TEH EDUCSHUN SYTEM!!!1!!!!!!!111!!

  • ||

    "Most people paid no attention in 2000 when the United Nations proclaimed the goal of halving the number of earth's inhabitants living in extreme poverty by 2015, compared to 1990."

    Given some in the UN's green agenda, I am not sure they meant raising half that number's wealth.

  • Darfur & Its Ilk||

    **cough**

  • sarcasmic||

    Bringing people out of poverty is easy.

    Just change the definition of poverty.

  • ||

    I was just thinking the same thing. Also, raising people out of the $2/day bracket means what? $2.01/day? Did they adjust for inflation?

    I am betting in many areas where that has happened the conditions are indistinguishable from those of 1990.

  • sarcasmic||

    They had to do the opposite here in the US with regards to hunger.
    Because there are so few people who are actually hungry in this country (the number is close to zero), they had to invent the term "food insecure".
    It's a totally bullshit term which basically means that someone doesn't know what's for dinner, or that they're afraid that they may not have anything for dinner. It doesn't mean that they actually skip a meal, just that they are feel that there is a chance that they might.
    Pure poppycock.

  • WTF||

    Pure poppycock.

    They also include "Lack of variety" in the 'food insecure' defintion, so yeah, bullshit all the way. And to think how many morons are devoting time and money to this made-up cause that would be better spent elsewhere.

  • sarcasmic||

    morons are devoting time and money to this made-up cause that would be better spent elsewhere

    I think you just defined government.

  • ||

    Morons will also waste effort and money on anything else they do. The problem is morons, not their current fads.

  • ||

    Morons will also waste effort and money on anything else they do. The problem is morons, not their current fads.

    The success of the Twilight series is appropriate confirmation of this premise. As is tri-coloured hair, underwater-basket-weaving-gender-religio-ethic-tution-sink degrees, and anything related to Apple (though I do own stock and made a killing.)

  • ||

    The Hunger Games omg best movie like ever! and so original! how did she like think that story up?!?!?!?!?

  • ||

    Oh give me a fucking break! The Hunger Games is nothing more than The Lord of the Flies meets Running Man wrapped up in a pre-pubescent vulva.

    I hear the book is very readable, however.

  • Realist||

    An in a Democracy,,,,morons vote.

  • sarcasmic||

    Not only to morons vote, but they often vote for fellow morons.

  • Realist||

    ...and they often...vote often.

  • mr simple||

    But, but, food deserts!

  • Pistol Pete||

    Pure poppycock.

    Nope. Not really

  • sarcasmic||

    You need to watch more British telly.

  • Pistol Pete||

    The only British telly I watch is reruns of AbFab.

  • sarcasmic||

    Never seen it.

  • Pistol Pete||

  • Pistol Pete||

    And no, I am not gay. (Not that there's anything wrong with that)

  • ||

    There is no reason for people anywhere to be poverty stricken other than culture. I have spent alot of time in the 3rd world, and it is painfully obvious right away that 3rd world poverty is self-inflicted.

  • ||

    +1 on this. Like you, I've spent most of my time in 3rd world s***holes. I tend to work on the security end and the best description of the problems I've come up with is "if you are dealing with a group of people who have gotten their asses handed to them by anyone who has bothered to show up for the last 2000 years, then the real problem is internal to their culture."

  • ||

    Bringing people out of poverty is easy.

    Just change the definition of poverty.

    Excellent idea! We can use this sure fire semantic mangling for reduction of health care costs via re-classification of known disease processes as mere "conditions" and the appropriate corresponding TX's as "elective", particularly surgical intervention. IOW, you're not really gravely ill, just merely afflicted.

    ASA 325mg bid cures all! Utter fiscal genius!

  • Rich||

    Hi, Doc! Always glad to see your comments. Where ya been, if I ain't being too inquisitive?

  • ||

    I'll thread here too, Rich. Hi yourself! DEC and JAN were very busy, as patients were getting the last claims and procedures in for the fiscal year.

    I spent ten days in Donetsk, UKR in FEB, as I am looking to expatriate.

    NZ is also in the running. India is too politically unstable.

  • Rich||

    Wow. That is major. Best wishes!

  • ||

    Maybe you should be out researching a cure for Warty's anal fissures rather than goofing around on the internet, Dr. Strangeglove.

  • ||

    I'll thread just for you Saccharin Man. BTW, nice pancreas. As for commenting on Warty, HIPAA.

    Do you happen to have any spare lipid tissue, SF? Warty is ...urm... hungry.

  • ||

    Warty don't love me, he just love my lipid style.

  • ||

    he just love my lipid style.

    Is that Saccharin Speak for Greek?

  • ||

    "Look, I don't do nothin' freaky with my fat."

  • NotSure||

    The communists have long given up on the idea that communism will provide all the material goods it promised. They now are doing the opposite, using pollution and inequality as their new crusade for justice, which required cutting back on material wealth.

  • ||

    I've always suspected the left of secretly hating poor people.

    It's not really hate, per se. It's more of a general, endemic disdain with a heaping helping of hubris. It think it has something to do with fear of The Poor's perceived lack of sophistication infecting them via osmosis, otherwise, Tony would be first in line to volunteer time for the necessary indoctrination The Poor obviously requires.

    Except when school choice is involved, of course. Government monopoly is paramount in Tonytopia.

    Which reminds me, since Tony is hell bent on doling out my medical services at his Platonic behest, can I force Tony to teach The Poor new skill sets in his spare time?

  • sarcasmic||

    can I force Tony to teach The Poor new skill sets in his spare time?

    Leftists don't help The Poor directly. That's what government is for.

    Besides, what could Tony teach them other than how to argue disingenuously while sucking cock?

  • ||

    Sucking cock is a skill. You really think Tony does anything well?

  • sarcasmic||

    He is highly skilled at keeping contradictory thoughts in his head and ignoring basic distinctions. Perhaps he can also suck cock.

    John would know. Ask him.

  • John||

    Tony is an A1 knob gobbler.

  • ||

    The Poor are merely a useful weapon in the left's war against the productive. That's why poverty is a moving target: A society with absolutely no stratification is impossible, so there will always be a 99% and a 1% even if the dividing line between the two is a couple of hundred dollars. EAT THE RICH!

  • ||

    EAT THE RICH!

    Too fattening. Needs more Pink Slime.

  • ||

    If there is not a riot grrl revival band renaming themselves Pink Slime at this point, I'll be super-disappoint.

  • Teenage Girl||

    Eewww!!

  • ||

    Sounds liek a plan to me dude.

    www.Anon-Works.tk

  • mr simple||

    But, people living in poverty in socialist third world countries proves that our capitalism doesn't work! We cause their poverty!

    Yes, I've actually heard this argument.

  • Resplenda||

    That is such BS.

    Everybody knows sunspots cause poverty.

  • sarcasmic||

    Sunspots cause variations in the climate, which are blamed on fossil fuels, resulting in restrictions on their use, which decreases the availability of energy by increasing its price, lowering economic activity, resulting in poverty.

    So yes, sunspots do indeed cause poverty.

  • Resplenda||

    The science is settled.

  • Algore||

    Liverspots cause poverty.

  • ||

    I'm super cereal!

  • Sweden= socialist third world?||

    Yeah, I've actually heard this argument.

  • mr simple||

  • Mitt Romney||

    See? I was right. I don't need to be concerned with the very poor. They are becoming richer.

  • Brandon||

    There is a difference between being concerned and forcing everyone else to become poor in the name of equality.

  • ||

    Unless people evolve to where they can feed by photosynthesis and live in any weather conditions, wealth will still have to be created.

    So, we will need more CO2 output then, to accommodate all that novel florae. MOAR COAL!

  • shrike||

    Behindertsein ist schön

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Even though my kid is grown, I still plan on reading this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/Your-Tea.....1595230777

    ...just because it pisses off liberals.

  • Texas Board of Education||

    Also, don't forget that evolution is marxist, my Fellow Fundie.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    This relates how, exactly?

  • The Pointer-Outer||

    There is no relation, unless you're a Marxist.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I don't see the line between being a capitalist, and being a "fundie". I'm not a religious dude.

  • You're both Fundamentalists||

    Fundamentalism is the demand for a strict adherence to specific doctrines usually understood as a reaction against liberal science, combined with a vigorous attack on outside threats to their culture.

    That describes creationist fundamentalists and market fundamentalists pretty well.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Okay, but do you only apply that to people who aren't socialists or communists?

  • Religious Atheist||

    All people opposed to public schooling are opposing the teaching of evolution, because if we didn't have laws forcing public schools to teach evolution and providing them with a captive audience, people would start teaching the children creationism instead, children would stop believing in evolution, and creationism would prevail; that's how!

  • Paranoid Faggot||

    Yeah, and the next thing you know, they'll start teaching kids that oral and anal sex is wrong and gender is fixed from birth and homosexuality is a bad decision, and our well-penetrated bums will all be thrown in prison for child molesting if we try to show children gay porn!

  • Flaming Greentard||

    Imagine if we weren't allowed to force children to go to our schools and look at our documentaries explaining that Earth is going to roast unless they join our scientific consensus and institute global governance. They might actually start listening to the deniers! All our being so super-good at all that science stuff would be for nothing!

  • DonM||

    I homeschool my children on evolution. The leftist school system in Los Angeles is good about teaching marxism, but not much else.

  • Market Fundamentalists are to||

    ...economics what Creationist Fundamentalists are to science.

  • Meaning...||

    ...inherently right, and way better than what the current crop of retards has to offer.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    That's bullshit.

  • NYC Girl||

    Mankind hasn't seen the progress its seen since the implementation Controlled Capitalism and the American way. Not a completely loose free market with no regulations and safety nets.

    Capitalism shares the same problem with Communism/socialism and that is Corruption.

    As far as creating poverty, of course capitalism creates poverty. But as long as we have safety nets like food, shelter, healthcare, and education for the young, I guess poverty is no big deal.

    Look at the Public Housing Projects in NYC. They have elevators, air conditioning, playgrounds, parking. The standard of living for the American poor is not too too bad. It's bad enough that I don't want to be poor, but it's not as bad as Indo-China, Haiti, etc.

  • ChrisO||

    Corruption is endemic to the human condition. The more government you have, the more corruption you have.

    Oh, and capitalism did not "create" poverty, which has been the norm for most of human history. Free enterprise has helped multitudes escape poverty, though.

  • NYC Girl||

    It is OK to be Critical of Capitalism.

    And, the fact that a factory owner became rich by sending 1000 jobs to Mexico (Transferring Mexican workers them from extremely poor into marginally poor) and putting 1000 Americans unemployed is an issue worthy of being criticized.

    You see, the free enterprise in America made me rich. The slave labor available in the rest of the world that that is free of American style Markets/Government/Safety nets made me even richer.

    Government can curve corruption. And, clever implementations of Free Markets can curve corruption as well. American Free Enterprise has room for improvement...as great as it is.

  • Cytotoxic||

    It is OK to be Critical of Capitalism.

    No it isn't.

    putting 1000 Americans unemployed is an issue worthy of being criticized.

    Unless it's the government policy doing that right?

    Government can curve corruption.

    No it can't.

  • NYC Girl||

    American Capitalism is not perfect and can be improved in many ways. It's the BEST SYSTEM ever...and that's what I said.

    Saying that an in-perfect anything is not worthy of criticism is immature.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Government can curve corruption... but only upward.

  • ||

    So Americans are more deserving of jobs than Mexicans because Mexicans are used to being poor? Wow.

  • NYC Girl||

    What? Is that what I said?

    I merely used the Mexicans as an example.

    What I'm saying is that the factory owner went outside the American Free Market to get labor. And there is NO stopping that. PERIOD. Most jobs in America that can be shipped out will be shipped out to places where the locals can be bribed to make sure that the local workers don't turn into American Workers demanding salaries.

  • Brandon||

    So it is not possible that those Mexicans just prefer factory work to subsistence farming or drug muling?

  • ||

    So Americans are more deserving of jobs than illegal Mexicans because illegal Mexicans are eligible for welfare on our dime anyway.
    FIFY

  • ||

    It is OK in a legal sense to be critical of capitalism, obviously. But criticism is not a worthy end result. Truth is. So you may put capitalism up to scrutiny, but only to find out how it compares to the alternatives. That is, if you care about truth.

  • you can't handle the truth||

  • NYC Girl||

    No Alternatives available. This is it. This appears to be the best. But capitalism along with safety nets and regulations is what did it...The American Way. Not capitalism alone.

  • ||

    Those safety nets that didn't exist until 60-70 years ago?

  • DonM||

    I figure the capitalist system does its work despite regulation, and not because.

    A bit of liability for damages is all that is needed from the government, and I am not sure that the government needs to do that. A situation where manufacturers seek private binding arbitration by an honorable party to avoid the pain of anarchism might be preferable to coerced arbitration by government lackey/Judge (or a random assortment of people in a jury, with the exposition mediated by government lackey/judge).

  • submandave||

    "In 1981, ... 42 percent had to manage with less than $1 a day. Today, 43 percent are below $2 a day."

    Considering that today's $2 buys what $1 bought in 1981, I'd say we've gotten worse by 1%.

  • Souxie||

    Did you consider that your point is so bleeding obvious that maybe, just maybe, we're talking about constant dollars?

  • ||

    For all those "Chicago boys" fans with lack of numerology $2 per day from 30 years ago equals 25 cents today and the human cost in Chile was incalculable

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement