This is a deeply flawed op-ed, and repeats some of the erroneous arguments I addressed in this earlier column:
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
bloomberg.com/opinion/articl…
Briefly:
1. The lower the poverty threshold, the more important it is. Reducing $1.90/day poverty is more important than reducing $3.10/day poverty, which is more important than reducing $5.50/day poverty, etc. etc.
Dismissing the $1.90 threshold is therefore ridiculous...
1. The lower the poverty threshold, the more important it is. Reducing $1.90/day poverty is more important than reducing $3.10/day poverty, which is more important than reducing $5.50/day poverty, etc. etc.
Dismissing the $1.90 threshold is therefore ridiculous...
2. The article's author dismisses the idea that growth reduces poverty. Growth reduces poverty far more than anything else.
3. The author equates "growth" with laissez-faire economic policies, which is wrong. He then dismisses China, discounting its impact on poverty reduction because he believes its growth didn't come from laissez-faire policies.
It's a bizarre "no true Scotsman" argument.
It's a bizarre "no true Scotsman" argument.
4. The author makes a number of assertions that are just flat-out wrong, such as that growth is correlated with increasing hunger and a reduction in the number of living-wage jobs. In fact, the exact opposite is true. 
By insisting we A) ignore important poverty reduction metrics, B) equate economic growth with laissez-faire policies, and C) discount the experience of China, the author does a vast and grievous disservice to the poor people of Earth, and to efforts to make them less poor.
(end)
(end)
