How to Fight Global Poverty - Learn Liberty

[@Trojanponey]

I'm a Libertarian Capitalist and I actually agree with you. The problem is that many environmentalists only want to focus on controlling American polluting which is contridictive to the real issues. What we need (from an environmental viewpoint) is to make it clear we want these developing Nations to too take similar steps to the ones we as Westerners have. No regulation isn't really the answer, but neither is punishing Western businesses and letting the real problem children roam free.

[@LearnLiberty]

@ShamelessGit, Yes, you are right about that. The measure of a "dollar a day" was $1.08 in 1993 and $1.25 by 2005. Please see item #5 in the video description if you want more details on the UN's numbers. Thanks for your comment!

[@LearnLiberty]

Sean, Thanks for your comment. Please see item #5 in the video description for an explanation of how the UN changed its measures to adjust for "purchasing power parity."

[@LearnLiberty]

Hi Rahul, Please see the video description below the video for specifics on the numbers mentioned. The UN has adjusted the numbers for it calls "purchasing power parity." Thanks for watching.

[@LearnLiberty]

@DarkMatterTheory, Thanks for your comment! We have now addressed this in the video description. Please see item #5 for the source on the $1.25 number. The UN numbers account for what it calls "purchasing power parity."

[@LearnLiberty]

[NEW VIDEO] Private property and free markets save lives. Watch Professor Stephen Davies explain why they are the surest way to reduce poverty around the world. #poverty #libertarian #economicfreedom

[@stevedapirate5]

does buying local do anything to create wealth locally?

[@antidote7]

Brooks Gorden The parts are all made globally. Most purchases will support slave labor and wars for resources.

[@malemanjulpax2155]

+Learn Liberty can anyone tell me why GDP is a bad measure of economic growth indicator?

[@LearnLiberty]

Hi Nithin, Please see item #5 in the video description for an explanation of this. The UN actually used a measure of $1.08 in 1993 dollars, and $1.25 is an updated 2005 measure. The Millennium Development Goals were created in 2000.

[@LearnLiberty]

Hey Jay, Please see the description under the video. Item #5 discusses "purchasing power parity;" that is, the UN is adjusting its measure for inflation and other factors. Thanks for watching!

[@LearnLiberty]

Hi Bastian, Yes, please see item #5 in the video description for an explanation of the UN's numbers. Thanks for watching!

[@LearnLiberty]

@The Tech Guy, Thanks for your comment. We have updated the video description to address this. Please see item #5 for an explanation of the numbers.

[@drtomr]

Awesome!! Awesome!! Awesome!!! The message is simple, factual, scientific, logical and compelling It has no TED-talk like spin to give credit to collectivism for the fall in poverty.... Its simple, plain and obvious - Prosperity comes from free market enterprise!

[@MishaZGreen]

Does this take into account the fact that the worth of the US dollar has drastically decreased over that time period?

[@alexw2689]

Yes, the dollars are adjusted to 2005 dollars. It's in the "About" tab, just click show more and all of the sources are listed.

[@MishaZGreen]

Master Yoda Thank you for pointing that out. The dollar devalued more in that time period though. The marking point should have been $1.45.

[@indobalkanizer6557]

Or maybe the power of Zionist Bankers have decreased

[@biomerl]

I would love to see how "extreme poverty" is defined. They said how in the video. I would also like to see how many people have been driven from realtive affluence into "moderate poverty" in the last 40 years.  They also mention this in the video.

[@LearnLiberty]

@TheHiddenLlama7, Yes, please see item #5 in the video description. Thank you for your comment!

[@LearnLiberty]

@kyochanfight, Please see item #5 in the video description for information on how the UN has adjusted its numbers. Thank you for watching!

[@LearnLiberty]

@73HNiNJ4, Yes, please see item #5 in the video description for an explanation of the UN's numbers. Thanks for your comment!

[@LearnLiberty]

@DrPhallus, Please see the video description for a list of sources for this video. Thanks!

[@TheShowThatSUX]

May I ask can you provide sources for deregulation and changes in gov policy toward less gov, that had a positive impact on achieving this goal? You provide sources for the statistics, but I need direct policy changes in say India and elsewhere for a debate on this point... as I know the counter debate will be so you can prove the change but in no way a link to the cause... Thanks in advance.

[@LearnLiberty]

TheShowThatSUX Try this: www.cato.org/economic-freedom-states-india

[@gregkahuna1]

***** Sorry, but Pinochet ignored the advice of the Chiacgo Boys and used currency manipulation.

[@TheShowThatSUX]

Hay every one as you can see my pet troll has stopped by: make sure you feed them :)

[@scopeless22]

Well, please inform me. What new technology created during war, explicitly from the war not borrowed from private sector uses?

[@spitzbubezumquadrat]

and btw how did i not use the word liberal(s) correctly in accordance with the Definition you just gave?

[@TheMrHighlarious]

Where is he getting his stastics from?

[@Ramezml]

I used to like youtube more a few months ago, before the newest update. Back then I was able to read a public debate in the comment section without spending an hour on each one, because you weren't able to write twenty lines on every comment.

[@ymkamara420]

con 2..its physical dimensions are awesome. From mid-1940 to mid-1945 munitions makers produced 86,338 tanks; 297,000 airplanes; 17,400,000 rifles, carbines, and sidearms ; 315,000 pieces of field artillery and mortars; 4,200,000 tons of artillery shells; 41,400,000,000 rounds of small arms ammunition; 64,500 landing vessels; 6,500 other navy ships; 5,400 cargo ships and transports; and vast amounts of other munitions. Despite countless administrative mistakes, frustrations,

[@OptimalOwl]

- In order for that number to contain significant backslide into moderate poverty, most of those $1.25/day people would have had to leap all the way to >$4/day - which, if you think about it, would present an even stronger case for liberalization as the way to fight poverty.

[@nominalegg5865]

Dennis, the politics I was referring to was in the comments section. I'm not sure where you get your data about world resources but there are a number of scientific studies showing some resources to be finite (particularly the supply of cheap oil) See below. The world population may not be burdensome yet, but study the "hockey stick" pattern of the exponential curve and you'll see that it is inevitable. Do a search for "the crash course". It's a great starting point.

[@LearnLiberty]

@TheMrHighlarious, Please see the video description for a list of sources. Thanks for watching!

[@solylapalma]

Is this adjusted for inflation?

[@RetchedKat]

I agree that we could do much better. I think Dr. Davies in the video agrees. What's your proposal for how to get there? Any reasonable person should be open to your ideas.

[@Oversight85]

I would love to see how "extreme poverty" is defined. I would also like to see how many people have been driven from realtive affluence into "moderate poverty" in the last 40 years.

[@Ramiromasters]

In many cultures they say: A young man has reached maturity when the boy dies and the man stop being narcissistic as he realizes he is part of a community. Until a man realizes his humanity and his place on the world, he will be trapped on his own mind imagining greatness unable to attain it, hiding behind a skill or virtue that doesn't allow him to come out for who he really is. I think perhaps many people gather things to hide behind them or maybe above them...

[@Technoguy3]

I think they do, but they do use the "official" inflation number, which we all know is lower than real inflation.

[@philidox]

I would have love to seen those stats on central/south africa & haiti. Has their poverty rates changed, if not yet not?

[@Toleich]

Can you cite your sources?

[@UTubekookdetector]

Using your reasoning, I could say that all our ag production was shifted out of the country in the last century. Fact is, it's so much more efficient, a small segment of the population produces many times the amount of food farmers produced in the 1920s.

[@wiimooden]

Britain was actually considerably pro-free trade every since the 1850s and the US, while nationally protectionist, was essentially a free trade zone from within due to the Commerce Clause. While tariffs were the highest in the world, they were generally closer to 20% rather than 40%. The protectionist policies of export nations have a much greater affect on rival export nations rather than industrialized importers. An 'infant industry,' as usual, is no longer a sound economic concept.

[@TruthRevoltNews]

love the information and you guys make very dynamic video's :)

[@CarbonGlassMan]

The access to clean drinking water is a measurement not affected by inflation.

[@cdploeg]

Part 2) The US had the highest import tariffs in the world 40-50% between 1863 and the second world war, and was very strict with foreign investment requirements. The same goes for the UK up till 1880 when it was already the world's dominant economy. Germany, France etc. same story. Also the contemporary economic miracles in Asia, from South Korea to Japan, they were extremely strict with foreign investment requirements/bans, import tariffs etc.

[@jarnMod]

Does the value of absolute poverty (1.25$) change? I mean, 1.25$ may worth a burger today but less than half a burger in the next 5 years. I mean, people may earn more than 1.25$ but they are still pretty much in poverty, plus tons of debt.

[@LearnLiberty]

PrismaDominatus Good thinking! Please see source #5 in the video description for an explanation of this.

[@jarnMod]

Learn Liberty Oh, it is included in the source. I'll continue reading. Thanks Learn Liberty

[@julienbish]

does this keep in mind inflation? cause maybe 1$/day in 1980 is like 0.50$/day now, so the numbers could be misleading...?

[@NikoLorenzio]

What about inflation? Does the 1.25 today still provide as much as it did in 1990?

[@ShamanMcLamie]

People have been exploiting the Earth since the beginning of time. The first farmers exploited nutrient rich soil to grow food. The first miners exploited minerals in the ground to make tools. The first lumberjacks exploited our forests for lumber. Exploiting resources and opportunities to benefit ourselves is how we have advanced. If those companies exploit Earths resources to make goods that people demand and use. The consumer is just as much a part of of the exploitation. It's not exactly bad

[@OptimalOwl]

"Extreme poverty," as the UN chose to define it, is to live on $1.25/day or less. A single number cannot describe the composition of a heterogenous group, but from the information presented, it seems improbable that a lot of people would have backslid into moderate poverty, since that bracket had also decreased. -

[@tapranascer]

Keynesian policies have also played a major role is reducing the number of people that live below 1 dollar a day. By making this one dollar worth less and less...

[@ymkamara420]

Actually it stimulate growth. But don't a Keynesian like me word for it. Here is libertarian Robert Higgs "In 1940 and 1941 the economy was recovering smartly from the Depression, but in the latter year the recovery was becoming ambiguous, as substantial resources were diverted to war production. From 1942 to 1944 war production increased rapidly. Although there is no defensible way to place a value on the outpouring of munitions, "

[@ZarquonZ]

From what I know, the extreme poverty indicator is adjusted for inflation. I am not all too sure how they managed to associate their definition of extreme poverty of: "the absence of one or more factors enabling individuals and families to assume basic responsibilities and to enjoy fundamental rights." with a numerical economic value of "1.25 USD". It implies that earning more than a 1.25 USD a day will sudden enable individuals and families to enjoy fundamental rights.

[@JesseRitchey]

Does this video account for inflation. From 2006 to 2013 the fed has more then tripled the base money.

[@Evnfurtherbeyond]

has that $1.25 goal been adjusted for inflation?

[@fbibarbie]

yes just read the text that goes with the video and look at the sources they gave next time. "This data takes into account "purchasing power parity." The $1.25 a day is in 2005 dollars, and replaces the previously used measure $1.08 from 1993"

[@CarbonGlassMan]

I don't know that people will literally starve to death, but that is possible. Food producers produce food in order to make money, so fi the money is not worth anything, they will only produce enough for themselves and stop producing food to sell for worthless dollars. You could be right about that, for sure.

[@finerbiner]

Globalization is awesome for people living in abject poverty. It is also awesome for Multi-national corps because it means that their ability to drive down the wages of the western world will go on unchecked. It really sucks for the American worker though. Almost 40 yrs of shrinking wages are hard to deny. Who's side are we on?

[@happy_thinking]

Maybe if the USA kept doing inovative research and let the market decide things would be different. Instead the masses where exploited by a government that spent trillions on needless wars and Wallstreet bailouts.

[@jackmcslay]

The lost productivity from government regulation is responsible for low wages, not free enterprise. In a free market, companies will have to compete for labor and thus those hard-working people will be able to bid their wages as they gain in productivity

[@KaiserTom]

The IDEA of Reaganomics was for less control by government however what was implemented definitely wasn't this idea. In certain areas it was, but in most government control was made more subtle. Hard caps became soft caps. The government influenced businesses by tax cuts and raises rather than direct subsidies or fines. Reaganomics never happened in the US, it's like saying Marxism was practiced in the Soviet Union when it was instead communism.

Healthc and edu aren't usually troubling developed countries. Most problems come when politicians decided to bail out their out of control private financial sectors after deregulation. Saying that privately run services are always better is too simplistic in my view and doesn’t take into account all the cases where companies go bankrupt after privatisation. But if that were the case, I would still prefer that everybody gets mediocre healthc and edu over just a few getting excellent services.

[@christianldove]

The goals were set at the Millennium Summit in 2000. Even if this is not accounting for inflation (which I believe it is) the dollar has only inflated ~33% since then, not 200%.

[@aj19bcx]

I thought they already covered this: the way to fight global poverty is to buy high quality coffee

[@Trepur349]

Currently there are 4 definitions of poverty. Absolute poverty is $1/day, extreme poverty is less then $1.25/day(1990 international $) or less than $2/day (2000 US$) depending on who's defining it.then there is the general poverty which is less then 1/3 of the median income of the country you live in.

[@ymkamara420]

con 3 and turf battles, the command economy worked. But, as always, a command economy can be said to work only in the sense that it turns out what the authorities demand. The U.S. economy did so in quantities sufficient to overwhelm enemy forces.” Also Miltary spending is what made Northern Virginia the richest part of this nation.

[@MikeM8891]

I think that's why he mentioned clean drinking water. It shows that not all of it is inflation.

[@Zimbertica]

$1 in 1990 would buy you $1.71 in 2010 according to dollartimes/com. Also, converting the $1 to the Yuan and the Rupee... in 2010, $1 was worth nearly 7 Yuan and 50 Rupee. And looking up the cost of living in India on numbeo/com shows that a combo meal at McD's is 190 Rupees, so it'd take 3 days of saving to eat at McD's

[@TheRequestNetwork1]

I'm not denying that China and India's economic booms were a good thing, but ever since they have both been polluting the shit out of their environment. I still don't understand how we shouldn't have some environmental regulation, maybe I haven't seen to many other viewpoints to solving this problem.

[@cdploeg]

Part 1) China and India are actually one of the few countries in the third world that still have protectionist policies. True, China has opened up its market for trade, which is essential to gain foreign technologies that will help your economy forward. But this is hardly free trade, it has foreign investment requirements and bans, import tariffs and quotas, and state run enterprises. The same goes for India, and actually for every developed country during its own development.

[@Lobos222]

World wide poverty has gone down,but in the West it has gone up for the same reasons.Short term when people are living on less than 1$ its not hard to increase their living standards. The reason why Learn Liberty chooses world wide instead of USA is because the stats would be opposite and have shown so since 1970s and Reagens destruction of US Unions. You see similar stats in the UK post Thatcher years. In the West! Production is up,but buying power via wages are DOWN. 2008 even made it WORSE!

[@methylatedmaus9760]

Big question that was not addressed; I hope Learn Liberty will return to comment on this as well as citing the data this was drawn from and how it was obtained.

[@malemanjulpax2155]

can anyone tell me why GDP is a bad measure of economic growth indicator?

[@Bartleby317]

An area the size of Texas could feasibly support the entire world's population. That is because of technology. Technology leads to greater results from work and resources invested every day. While there is certainly a finite limit to what our planet can support, but we are nowhere near that limit. This isn't even politics at all. It is a recognition that the world's population isn't as burdensome as people think. New Jersey has more people per square mile than India. It's doing just fine.

[@GagGod]

My only issue with this video is that I doubt it takes in to consideration inflation. A $1.25 in the 80's had more buying power than it does today. Although, today their is more choices of things to purchase due to innovation and technology, i doubt people living in abject poverty will care to much for the latest apple products

[@MishyHD]

In America, at the very least, inflation has traveled up at about the same rate as the average wage. Long story short, someone in America, as it were, with a 1.25 dollar a day job in 1990, would be payed relatively the same amount currently. That is, their current wage would yield them the same purchasing power. So, essentially, while 1.25 dollars is indeed worth less today, someone working the same 1.25 dollar a day job in the 1990 isn't any better off pecuniarily than someone working it now.

[@Defiance.]

actually Reagan had small government rhetoric, but in reality, Reagan expanded the size of government.

[@ztSHOCK]

Excellent question.

[@TheHiddenLlama7]

Is the whole living under $1.25 thing accounting for inflation?

[@connyherno5564]

Thanks for the data

[@desposify]

26 people do not pay attention to the video, or the description

[@aKeckers1]

People act in their own self interest (if they are rational). Acting in your own self interest does not mean you act alone. Very often you act with others in order for all of you to achieve your self interested outcomes. Assuming that acting in self interest can only benefit the individual is reducing the economy to a zero sum game and is a ridiculous premise.

[@Bartleby317]

The chief issues with the supposed problem of overpopulation are economic in nature, and not a matter of whether or not the resources exist. Peak oil has been predicted any number of times and yet we've not come anywhere near it. Nuclear, solar, wind, and so on remain viable items to leverage us through the period where we develop other, better ways to harness energy. We're incredibly wasteful right now because it's more economically efficient to be so. That will fix itself over time.

[@rawheas]

The UN's numbers ARE factored for inflation. This guy is not talking crap this is real facts. The worlds economies are developing faster than most people believe and life might still be difficult but it gets easier on average every year for everyone.

[@BillWiltfong]

Thanks!

[@julienbish]

i am wondering the same thing.... the numbers could be misleading.

[@Ramiromasters]

Socialism: Synergy is what we get by working in groups, like the old saying goes; two hands work 3 times as much as just one. So if two people work they will produce extra product that might be used to help someone or to save it for later. In Capitalism, the tendency is that the extra product does not go to the people who work for it but the people who first had the idea of working on that field. Also, climbing the latter would not solve inequality because its a human climb...

[@jdenney]

The world is a labor pool in a free market? Pretty sure an auto manufacturer in Detroit isn't going to hire physical laborers that live in Kenya for their facility in Detroit. While the "pool" may appear to be global, the labor resources of production are locally grown.

[@nominalegg5865]

Please provide sources for "fossil fuel revolution".

[@shway1]

The dollar has had 79.1% inflation since 1990. Poverty didn't fall, at least not by that much. The poverty line fell. And population went up.

[@cdploeg]

Part 3) Africa which has been dominated by the IMF structural adjustments since 1982, completely opening up its market to free trade has actually declined in health and poverty indicators! while Latin-Americas protectionist progress of the 60's and 70's has gone from 3% to 1% averagely. A protectionist economy is not the same as a closed economy, it's using your trade strategically to import technologies on the one hand, and protect your own infant industries that can't compete yet on the other.

[@gta4everrr]

Thats not the only problem When 1% of the population owns 40% of the wealth, it shouldn't be a surprise that 20-30% of people in the US fall below the poverty line. I'm not advocating extreme socialist redistribution of wealth, i'm just advocating more equality of opportunity.

[@Harpsichord246]

The UN's threshold is $1.25 today, so this video is correct.

[@UTubekookdetector]

If you haven't perused EIA stats concerning the amount of natural gas & crude oil coming out of ND & TX for example, let me urge you to do so. In addition, eia(dot)doe(dot)gov/pub/international/iealf/crudeoilreserves(dot)xls focuses on proven oil reserves on an international scale. The US is set to overtake Saudi Arabia & Russia pertaining to natural gas & crude oil production, largely thanks to fracking.

[@MrMarnix]

There are several problems with the numbers. First of all, we have no idea how many people live on $1 a day. Not in 1990, and not even now. Poor people in poor countries do not declare anything. Their economic activity is informal. Secondly, governments in poor countries have an incentive to exaggerate poverty to attract foreign aid. Thirdly, as mentioned, inflation of the dollar, but also the fluctuations of other currencies such as the Rupi. Though I do support the conclusions in this video.

[@MecanicalEnd]

What about Africa?

[@JasonGafar]

oh yeah, the beautiful country of Africa... and the capital of this beautiful country called Africa would be (let me guess), Africa city?

[@amommamust]

Oh, like the fluoride laced stuff coming out of our taps? Or maybe the stuff in Texas that ignites from the faucet?

[@Phl3xable]

China and India didn't pursue Reaganomics; they pursued less government. control, not more.

[@jackmcslay]

Increase in per capita income doesn't come out of nowhere. If they do increase, it's because the workers are more productive or because government is cutting down taxes/spending.

[@carryclass]

worldwide poverty has for all practical purposes only one cause: people having children that they can not afford to support. if this practice stopped worldwide, poverty would be nearly destroyed in one generation.

[@spinemelter2000]

I agree completely, but whenever I bring up that point, conservatives get offended. They think it's every person's obligation to produce biological children. There's a lot of discrimination against those who are gay, childfree or have adopted children.

[@MrGman543]

why are they having more children? because they die more often. I know exactly what you are talking about but I would claim they are just the right amount of kids. Biologically, it makes sense to have 4+ kids when 30% of them will die (I'm not aware of actual figures so excuse me if its lower or higher in areas with extreme poverty). large families ended in america after our medical revolution. I think nations will have to go through their own medical revolution in order to decrease child birth rate. (which will obviously free up capital)

[@-dlb-]

it would be interesting to see how the number of unemployed in the western countries grows compared with the number of workers in the BRICS that have stared getting their petty wages. It's not a wonder of the free markets. Investments were made were slaves of 2-3 dollars a day wages could be employed. Still only a fraction of the profits of big corporations are invested anywhere. This is not free trade, it's just a scam.

[@XxTheCoxEffect]

Just thought I'd say his voice sounds very similar to that of the narrator in Fable......just saying

[@Phl3xable]

They were taken from quotes a few weeks before he died.

[@RetchedKat]

^This guy^ I'm with you. Don't call it Reaganomics. Reagan didn't invent it, nor did he *really* practice it.

[@connyherno5564]

Youre very wise Dennis. To bad people like chairman Deng think that the world is overpolulated, technology like gmo will make food cheaper. 1 farmer can make food for 100 peoples maybe more in the future.

[@CarbonGlassMan]

He also used access to clean drinking water as a measure.

[@DarkMatterTheory]

What about inflation? Do these numbers take into account the inflation of US dollar?

[@BillWiltfong]

I wonder how much of the drop in absolute poverty has something to do with $1.25 in 2010 money buying less than $2.00 in 1990 money.

[@johnadan3509]

As an European you know what you’re talking about 👍 great video 👍