(1/6) "Bill Gates says poverty is decreasing. He couldn’t be more wrong," says @jasonhickel. Here Hickel is dismissing extensive research by many people. He would need a good case, but he does not have one. theguardian.com/commentisfree/… (2/6) Nobody denies that data quality deteriorates as one goes back in time. Nonetheless, serious economic historians (with Angus Maddison at the top of the list) have been able to assemble credible estimates of GDP back to 1820. And it is not just cash income as Hickel claims.

At first I was impressed that Charles and Jason found so much to agree on. (I don't think I would have been as successful with either.) But on closer inspection, it seems that they only agree on the obvious, and ignore some less obvious things that really matter. Tweets follow.

https://twitter.com/charlesjkenny/status/1034180355471884288

One key point they make is that we find less progress against global poverty at higher poverty lines. At some point, progress in reducing either the % poor or number of poor comes close to zero. This is surely pretty obvious; no numbers are needed. (Sketch of proof follows.)