
The Most Important Thing: Decline in poverty, illiteracy and disease - apsec112
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the-most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html
======
manachar
It's really weird to me how commonplace the attitude of "It is what it is" and
"Government can't do anything".

The air and water quality in the US is vastly better since the passage of laws
that created and empowered the EPA (Created by the Republican President
Nixon). The endangered species act has had many similar successes.

I live on Maui. The waters are now filled with Green Sea Turtles and Humpback
whales that were nearly non-existent just 30 years ago. Yet when development
and global climate change are threatening our reefs, people look at you like
you're crazy for thinking that laws can be effective in safeguarding the
environment for the future.

~~~
baddox
What are you referencing in regards to poverty? I would have guessed that the
recent reduction in poverty is largely attributable to wealthy nations
_reducing_ efforts to centrally plan the economies of poor nations.

~~~
malchow
The conceit of the article -- borne out by economic history -- is exactly
that: it's the reduction of efforts to centrally plan, and the rise of
entrepreneurial, capitalistic efforts to advance, that has reduced poverty.
[1] [2]

[1] [https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/deirdre-
mccloskey-...](https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/deirdre-mccloskey-
ideas-not-capital-are-root-cause-development) [2]
[https://ricochet.com/perhaps-the-most-powerful-defense-of-
ma...](https://ricochet.com/perhaps-the-most-powerful-defense-of-market-
capitalism-you-will-ever-read/)

~~~
Steko
The article is actually fairly silent on the reasons so read into it what you
will. If anything the author is endorsing his friend's book without giving
away the thesis and if the link is accurate it covers a wide range of factors.

As for Deirdre McCloskey, as Noah Smith says,"do not believe things that
Deirdre McCloskey says just because she says them."

[http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/deirdre-
mccloskey...](http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com/2015/06/deirdre-mccloskey-
says-things.html)

------
dredmorbius
Yes, a vast number of the world's poorest population have been raised out of
nominal abject poverty, this is true.

What Kristof _doesn 't_ state, however, are these facts:

1\. Those people live almost entirely in China and India.

2\. The rise in nominal wealth has come from a _tremendous_ increase in energy
consumption.

3\. Both nations have _extreme_ environmental problems, including the worst
air pollution situations in the world, result of extreme amounts of coal
consumption, water shortages, water pollution, and extensive land
contamination from mining, industrial, municipal, and other waste.

4\. Though overall efficiency in GDP output per unit energy has increased
modestly, overall, increases in _economic_ wealth require vast amounts of
additional _resource_ consumption.

The combination of factors 3 and 4 above means that the gains in economic
output are being accomplished largely by both strip-mining resources and
exhausting effluent dumps in China and India.

5\. Much of the apparent "de-materialisation" of economies in the developed
world _outside_ China and India is actually, on closer examination, based on
exporting raw material (and effluent) demands to those countries. See research
out of CSIRO (Australia) and UCSB.

6\. Outside of China and India (though yes, they're both huge countries),
progress in the "developing" world has been far more modest. In cases,
backsliding. Add to this economic regression through much of the Middle East
and North Africa (much of the disturbances of the Arab Spring is attributable
to economic circumstances), and even in OECD/European nations, particularly
Greece, Italy, Spain, and Portugal.

And finally: the _foundations_ of modern economic wealth, vast quantities of
nonrenewable resources, tapped at uttelry unsustainable rates, are quite
simply not sustainable. Without looking to this basis, effectively the fuel in
the tank, observations of altitude or velocity tell little.

~~~
ekianjo
> And finally: the foundations of modern economic wealth, vast quantities of
> nonrenewable resources, tapped at uttelry unsustainable rates, are quite
> simply not sustainable. Without looking to this basis, effectively the fuel
> in the tank, observations of altitude or velocity tell little.

the fuel in the tank has been increasing a lot actually in the past 20 years.
Did you notice that the US became the first producer of petrol ? And vast
amount of natural gas have been discovered, and we have uranium for the next
10 000 of years at least.

The real question is: are we running out of Energy ? The answer is a
resounding NO. and Peak petrol never happened, despite everybody claiming it
would, 20 years ago.

~~~
x5n1
> we have uranium for the next 10 000 of years at least.

No we don't. If you keep up with energy demand it's more like 300-1000 years.

~~~
dredmorbius
Given current rates of nuclear electricity generation, and conventional
reserves, about 75-80 years.

At _full_ energy supplied by nucelar, closer to 6.

If suggestions that 2ppm concentrations of uranium can be recovered from
seawater, possibly a few thousand years, though that strikes me as a
systemically risky proposition.

I've seen estimates for thorium all over the map, as well as other breeder-
type fuels. Between refining, proliferation, reprocessing, and waste, many
risks. We're also talking about nuclear power plant commissioning _and
decommissioning_ rates on the order of one per day, until doomsday, with
15,000+ plants required worldwide.

And nuclear still doesn't, on its own, address the liquid fuels problem. Or
other resource issues: fresh water, topsoil, phosphate, copper, tin, lithium,
etc. We're facing sharp limits on these and many other mineral resources.

------
mninm
"We cover planes that crash, not planes that take off."

It always fascinates me how much my world view and the world view of those
around me is based on the exceptional and not the mundane. The news outlets
report the news assuming that the audience knows what's normal. When the news
is used to become informed about the world many people come away with a skewed
impression of reality. I am of the opinion that people would be better served
by news reports that provide context to explain why the news is in fact news.

Here's some context I find interesting:

According to the CDC:

Americans murdered per year: 16,121

Americans killed in car accidents per year: 33,804

Americans killed by smoking related diseases per year: 480,000

[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm)
[http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-
injury.htm](http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/accidental-injury.htm)
[http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_...](http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/fast_facts/index.htm)

~~~
interpol_p
Can putting those numbers side-by-side in such a way mislead people on the
social impact of those events?

Murder is rare, but it has a very high impact on society and the surrounding
people. It creates an environment of stress and fear. Car accidents do the
same to a much lesser extent. Smoking related diseases are somewhat more
expected, they aren't so sudden. People have time to adjust, receive medical
attention, and so on.

When you put the numbers together it feels like we should tackle the causes of
the largest number of deaths first, then work our way to the fewest. But I
don't think that is beneficial, or even a rational approach to improving our
society.

You could use those numbers argue for ignoring mass shootings: i.e., there are
so few related to other causes of death. But it fails to take into account
just how many people they effect and how much it twists society (e.g., having
schools perform lockdown drills with 5-year-olds who don't understand why they
have to hide in a closet [1]).

I don't think we have a good measure to use to compare murders, to car
accidents, to death by disease. As raw quantities they skew our perception and
priorities. As pure numbers they fail to indicate to us the impact they could
have on our society.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rehearsing-for-
death...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/rehearsing-for-death-a-pre-
k-teacher-on-the-trouble-with-lockdown-
drills/2014/10/28/4ab456ea-5eb2-11e4-9f3a-7e28799e0549_story.html)

~~~
Asbostos
The negative effects of mass shootings are largely because people don't
understand the risks. So I think they'd go away if we realized they didn't
matter.

You're right though that smoking shouldn't be top. Everbody dies of something
but we can't save all old people from old age diseases forever.

~~~
Drumline
> You're right though that smoking shouldn't be top. Everbody dies of
> something but we can't save all old people from old age diseases forever.

The CDC disagrees. If you click through the last link in the post above they
list in great big bold letters "Smoking is the leading cause of preventable
death." The key word being "preventable". You're right in that there is little
value in worrying about unpreventable causes of death but, please, don't make
the mistake of thinking smoking is by any means unpreventable. Also, it's
worth pointing out that smoking including second hand smoking kills people of
all ages

------
underwires
The only reason that I already know this is Hans Rosling. His work is
excellent, check it out if you haven't already.
[http://www.gapminder.org/](http://www.gapminder.org/)
[https://www.google.com/webhp?q=hans+rosling&tbm=vid](https://www.google.com/webhp?q=hans+rosling&tbm=vid)

~~~
ekianjo
Yes, yes, yes, Rosling is right all the way and he is a very good communicator
on top of that, and hates the political correctness.

------
coffeemug
_> We cover planes that crash, not planes that take off._

This is why everyone should read The Economist instead of The New York Times.
The Economist does a phenomenal job avoiding the selection bias and finding a
way to cover mundane trends. It makes the mundane interesting, and gives a
view of the world that's much closer to reality than any other publication
I've ever seen. I'd strongly encourage everyone to give it a shot.

~~~
ckozlowski
I enjoy the fact that while they have a very clear opinion and bias (liberal
economics and the free market), they avoid mudslinging, keep their criticisms
factual, and are often quick to point out where their preferred system is
failing.

That being said, I've few issues with The New York Times.

------
Max_Horstmann
Since this is HN, here's a question: what role could _technology_ play in
eliminating extreme poverty by 2030?

~~~
whackedspinach
Well an easy answer is to take a lot of that money people are earning in
technology (I'm talking personal income or gifts from companies) and put it
towards programs that either work towards ending poverty in those cases
(through economic development, direct cash grants, etc) or improving health
conditions, which often helps.

Some possibilities (although there are many others):
[http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-
charities](http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities)

If you have a novel approach using technology, you should pursue it, but don't
let a lack of a technological solution prevent you from doing anything right
now.

~~~
JesperRavn
Also whenever you earn more money, some the tax you pay goes towards programs
like this whether you donate anything extra or not. So getting a high paying
job alone helps.

~~~
dannypgh
Your taxes also fund the IMF, the legal system used to defend drug parents,
and the promotion of "abstinence-only" sex-ed.

The reality is federal programs aren't started or canceled based on total, let
alone an individual's, tax revenue, so I call bullshit here.

~~~
JesperRavn
OK, how about this for starters: do you agree that the following two
statements are inconsistent:

1\. Increasing tax dollars does not benefit the world by increasing the
services provided by the government.

2\. Rich people should pay more taxes.

The fact that total tax revenue must ultimately equal total government
expenditure in the long run, is not bullshit, it's basic accounting. And the
things you listed don't come close to canceling out the benefits of aid (and
what is wrong with the IMF in the first place?)

~~~
dannypgh
Nope, I don't agree.

Total tax revenue does not need to equal total expenditures in the long run.
Fiat currencies are created when the government spends money, and it's a
choice (based on monetary schools of economics) to have them correlated with
revenue. It is not a requirement. The government prints money.

The IMF is tasked with countering global inflation; anti-inflation policies
disproportionately benefit those with cash and harm those with debts. In
practice, structural adjustment has led to reductions in all sorts of public
goods around the world, including education. Hence my inclusion of the IMF on
a list with other government programs that increase, rather than reduce,
wealth inequality.

------
mazerackham
Another big secret, is that the source of a lot of poverty being lifted is
because of China. That's right, that terribly _communist_ government
suppressing its people and free speech, is actually responsible for lifting
500 million people out of poverty over the last 30 years. That is definitely a
big secret of american media, and something that it neglects to report on, in
favor of free speech violations, naval exercises, ip infringement, and "job
stealing".

~~~
tsotha
>That's right, that terribly communist government suppressing its people and
free speech, is actually responsible for lifting 500 million people out of
poverty over the last 30 years.

There isn't anything recognizably communist about the Chinese system aside
from the name. And the big spurt of growth didn't start until Deng's market-
based reforms of the '70s.

So a better way to put it would be "After its Marxist fantasy economics
resulted in the starvation of more than forty million Chinese people, the
government wisely switched to capitalism, which lifted hundreds of millions
out of poverty."

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
That unrecognisably non-communist system still has huge elements of central
planning, government control, censorship, and price fixing.

It's hardly a free market paradise.

If you want a free market paradise with minimal government, try Somalia.

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4017147.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4017147.stm)

~~~
orblivion
As long as you cite the BBC's take on Somalia you might as well give it a fair
shake:

* [http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12278628) * [http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12285365](http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12285365)

------
quan
Is there any inflationary effect to the $1.25/day figure that has been used
since the 1980s? It's not clear from the article whether it's adjusted for
inflation.

~~~
marincounty
I couldn't find any correlation to inflation. I put in $2.00 in the
calculator, and the millions of people in poverty came close to doubling.

Maybe I'm missing something?

~~~
hliyan
Who is down-voting all the inflation related questions? This shouldn't have to
be explained to someone with downvote-level karma, but disagreeing with a
comment's point of view is not a good reason to downvote it.

------
mc32
Implied but not stated directly is that because vast reduction in disease and
proportionate increase in life expectancy people are having fewer children so
that the small resources people have don't have to be divided into smaller
slices but rather into larger slices.

Globalization, the boogeyperson of lots of people, has allowed some income
redistribution to the developing world -has the developed world not
globalized, it's not a given that had the developed world hoarded their
industry and jobs the poor countries would have done as relatively well as
they have.

It's also surprising to not see much comment on the interesting phenomenon
where countries which had relatively good economies in the early 20th century
(Mexico, Argentina, etc) went way down hill after WWii, partly severe
corruption and simple non-investment due to antiquated policies and emphasis
on natural resources rather than technologies.

~~~
BurningFrog
Nit pick: This is not about income redistribution to the developing world. The
poor of the world has simply become more productive and generated more of
their own income.

~~~
mc32
Right, but would the hundreds of millions of destitute subsistence farmers of
China have become more secure without the foreign investment and "job
shipping" of developed countries like Japan, North Am and Europe?

Would Africa be emerging as much without the Chinese foreign investment?

How does India plan on getting its poor on better standing other than inviting
firms from developed countries to invest in Indian manufacturing with the lure
of lower labor costs --even syphoning jobs off from China now that China's
workforce has become more expensive as they have become a rich country (the
second largest economy in the world).

------
MisterMashable
Ending illegal wars, the death penalty and torture are even more important.
Why would our government which has no problem killing, maiming and even
"torturing some folks" even begin to care about poverty, illiteracy and
disease? You may disagree but as a whole our government has a strong
proclivity to violence which implies a lack of regard for life. Dealing
effectively with poverty, illiteracy and disease presupposes our government is
sufficiently motivated to direct its attention to those issues. Pick any
metric you like and it clearly shows our government has other priorities.
Poverty is up, illiteracy is up, education is overall declining, university
tuition skyrocketing, cost of healthcare skyrocketing, planned parenthood
under attack etc. Our government just bombed a hospital in Afghanistan,
executed a woman in Georgia who should have served a life sentence instead, is
about to execute a man whose guilt is unclear and still tortures people in
dark forgotten corners of the globe. I don't think there can be any meaningful
change until bad people with no respect for life are removed from office and
replaced with good people who do respect life. It's no coincidence that since
the warmongers seized control of this country that education and healthcare
took a dive. Dr. Strangelove doesn't care one whit about poverty, illiteracy
and disease .

------
dkbrk
A minor note: the author refers to "Volkswagen corruption". I have not seen
the company's actions called corruption elsewhere, nor was it justified in the
provided link.

Volkswagen deliberately subverted regulations on emissions control. It would
have been _corruption_ if they also bribed officials to get away with it.

I'm not attempting to defend Volkswagen in any way, but the phrase is
sensationalist and strictly incorrect, even if only very slightly so. This is
interesting given the overall point of the article.

------
astazangasta
This article is deceptive because it speaks of raw numbers rather than
percentages. While the number of people living on less than a dollar a day
went up throughout the 20th century, this was because populations were
exploding over the same period. At the same time, the fraction of people
living on less than a dollar a day plunged dramatically. In fact, this trend
slowed after 1990 - since then this rate has declined less quickly than it did
during the seventies, when it fell from almost 30% to less than 10% in 1985.
See
[https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/capitalism.jp...](https://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/capitalism.jpg?w=900)
e.g.

~~~
forrestthewoods
That particular chart seems to show significantly lower numbers than most I've
seen. Sub 10% since 1985.

This one shows 20% as of 2010. And over 40% in 1990.
[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/USAID_Pr...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e1/USAID_Projections.png)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty)

Also from that article. "n 1990, the percentage of the global population
living in extreme poverty was 43.1%, but in 2010, that percentage had dropped
down to 20.6%." That doesn't line up AT ALL with your image which says 10% in
1985.

So I'm not sure what's going on here exactly. But I don't think it's as simple
as absolute vs percentage deception.

~~~
astazangasta
Different definitions of extreme poverty might change the percentages;
however, in all of these it ought to be clear that the rate of poverty
declined throughout the twentieth century, it did not go up mid century as
Kristof implies.

------
ekianjo
So this is where some folks on HN should come and complain and the raising
inequalities, despite the fact that literally everyone is getting richer.
Which is what ultimately matters.

~~~
gozo
Not everyone is getting richer. People aren't getting richer because of
inequality. Even if they were they don't lose their right to a fair share.
"What ultimately matter" is a weak argument that could be said to justify
anything e.g. security over freedom.

------
Tossrock
Reminds me of this similar article on the global decline in violence:
[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2014/12/the_world_is_not_falling_apart_the_trend_lines_reveal_an_increasingly_peaceful.html)

------
_gopz
> The number of extremely poor people (defined as those earning less than $1
> or $1.25 a day, depending on who’s counting) rose inexorably until the
> middle of the 20th century, then roughly stabilized for a few decades. Since
> the 1990s, the number of poor has plummeted.

I assume this is adjusted for inflation, but I didn't see anything in the
link. Does anyone know?

------
crdoconnor
>One survey found that two-thirds of Americans believed that the proportion of
the world population living in extreme poverty has almost doubled over the
last 20 years.

Curious that the author attempts to attribute this to media sensationalism
rather than, say, an increase in American poverty.

Or perhaps not, since Kristof is a fierce critic of the anti-sweatshop
movement.

~~~
tim333
Looking at the data for American poverty it hasn't budged that much
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#M...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Measures_of_poverty)

~~~
crdoconnor
[http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hunger-the-us-historic-
highs](http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/hunger-the-us-historic-highs)

------
tragomaskhalos
Disasters and tragedies sell, and we now get to hear about them from all over
the world, so selection bias is sadly inevitable. This is why millenarian
religions like the Jehovah's Witnesses (and, perhaps, radical Islam) are able
to so easily convince the gullible that the world is on its last legs.

------
xacaxulu
>That’s 95 percent of Americans — who are utterly wrong.

Sad, funny and completely unsurprising. At least this writer understands his
profession's complicity in the stultifying of America.

~~~
blumkvist
The author himself is quite complicit to this misbehavior.

------
AnimalMuppet
It's just insane how good this is. Yeah, the middle class is hurting
(worldwide, or pretty close), but the bottom is escaping poverty at an
_amazing_ rate.

~~~
FelixP
No. The middle class in the US and other highly developed nations is hurting,
but by any global measure, this group of people is actually relatively
wealthy. The global middle class has experienced an unprecedented level of
growth and prosperity over the past 25+ years. Of course, this has in many
cases come at the expense of the first group.

~~~
hwstar
I agree. The standard of living in the first world countries will meet the
third world countries in the middle. This explains why wages haven't increased
significantly in the past 25 years in the US.

Where it gets interesting is when equilibrium has been reached.

------
tchibon
As a side note, mr. Nicolas is the one feeding the media with "war, scandal
and disaster". It's enough to take a look at his wiki:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kristof](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicholas_Kristof)

or the topics he covers: [http://www.nytimes.com/column/nicholas-
kristof?action=click&...](http://www.nytimes.com/column/nicholas-
kristof?action=click&contentCollection=Opinion&module=Byline&region=Header&pgtype=article)

------
narrator
I think the average American is going to be shocked in the next couple of
years when the rest of the world passes us by. The technological capability of
developing nations has increased rapidly. Our rate of technological progress
is slowing down. For example, Intel is having difficulty scaling down process
technology past 14nm while the fabs in China are catching up at 28nm.

~~~
aianus
> For example, Intel is having difficulty scaling down process technology past
> 14nm while the fabs in China are catching up at 28nm.

It's much, _much_ easier to "catch up" than to actually innovate.

With the education system and culture in China and India there's no way
they're going to pass us by. Those are countries where having an original
thought and arguing with your teacher gets you kicked out of school.

Hell, in China you need a license to put up a website.

~~~
mazerackham
China has plenty of "original thought[s]". I bet India does too. I always find
it amazing that in the U.S. we tend to judge other countries as being
"unoriginal" or "lacking creativity", simply because we are better right now.
We forget to factor in that we are the wealthiest country in the world, have
been for hundreds of years. We have the best resources, and that create a
compounding effect for our accomplishments. Not to mention that a lot of our
original ideas likely come from specifically China and India.

~~~
blumkvist
He talks about the culture of those countries. If you managed a typical Indian
worker all you would ever hear is "yes, sir, I understood sir, it will get
done, sir". Then an endless myriad of excuses and blame shifting and promises.
People there are simply wired to always say "yes", never to question, never to
doubt, never to criticize. I hope you can see why this might be a problem for
transitioning to a "first world" economy, which relies on workers performing
services, rather than standing on an assembly line.

Things in China are a bit different, but not quite. Chinese culture makes
people very reluctant to admit they do not know something. In addition to that
in Chinese culture it is the responsibility of the listener to understand what
is being said, as opposed to western culture where it is the speaker's
responsibility to make sure that he is understood. This makes transfer of
knowledge en mass a very difficult task.

These simple, but fundamental differences are major hurdles for those
economies going further.

~~~
mazerackham
I don't really know much of Indian culture, but I doubt it's as simple as a
"yes sir" from your "typical Indian worker". That sounds like a gross
oversimplification.

Again, I reiterate that while cultural effects can be there, I think it's much
more prudent to look first for the historical and social causes of differences
(wealth, resources, times of prosperity & peace vs war and famine). I'd bet
money that those effects are orders of magnitude greater than any cultural
effects. It's not as simple as you make it out.

As a point of reference, I want to again point out that immigrants from India
and China to the U.S., carrying that same culture, have created much of the
innovation from America over the past 20-30 years. I don't think that would've
happened with typical "yes, sir, I understood sir, it will get one, sir"
attitude, that you are placing on the "typical Indian".

------
waltherp
Not to overreach here but thank you Internet! The single greatest equalizer in
human history.

------
oldmanjay
This journalistic impulse to sell the world as worse than it is will not end
because a single journalist caught a quick (and likely fleeting) guilty
conscience. It will continue until the profession recognizes that their
addiction to narrative harms the entire population.

~~~
cortesoft
No, it will continue until it stops generating revenue. It is our appetite for
this sort of journalism that feeds it; if all the journalists in the world
suddenly stopped writing fear-baiting stories, then someone else would start
writing those stories to fill the void.

The journalists aren't the ones with the addiction; it is their readers that
have the addiction.

------
beatpanda
Meanwhile,

[http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/19/humans-
cr...](http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/19/humans-creating-
sixth-great-extinction-of-animal-species-say-scientists)

~~~
beatpanda
Kristof also conveniently doesn't mention that poverty in the United States is
actually increasing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States)

~~~
webXL
That article is a textbook example of cherry picking. If you pick the height
of a boom as your baseline, of course poverty will increase during a major
recession.

