Global Poverty - China improving, India impoverished, Africa same(CNN)

[Fattyacids]

Exactly. thanks from proving my point. This is what I said I meant-

When i said GDP growth is obviously there , I meant to say " GDP growth difference between India and China need not be mentioned , that factor is obviously there.

I just said it in a shorter(brief) form in post 16.

Who are you trying to fool? You did not say GDP growth difference, you said GDP growth. If you truly meant GDP growth difference, then you not have said the following:

"We did not have the one Child policy that China did otherwise our number would have been similar to China.

"My point was that India would have been closer to the Chinese poverty rate of 15 % if we had a two or one child policy."


Logic will tell you that GDP growth are not at the same rate between two countries, so how can it not be a factor????

Your statement is logically correct only when GDP growth are similar, but it is not. Hence, it exposes that you did not mean GDP growth difference.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

yea so much when China took out more than 600 million from poverty.

Yeah because they had a higher GDP growth rate as well as that one child policy. Still I think without a one child policy India's drop of 60 % to 33 % poverty is impressive.

Who are you trying to fool? You did not say GDP growth difference, you said GDP growth. If you truly meant GDP growth difference, then you not have said the following:

"We did not have the one Child policy that China did otherwise our number would have been similar to China.

"My point was that India would have been closer to the Chinese poverty rate of 15 % if we had a two or one child policy."


Simply because, logic will tell you that GDP growth are not at the same rate between two countries, so how can it not be a factor????

Your statement is logically correct only when GDP growth are similar. Hence, it exposes that you did not mean GDP growth difference.

I have explained what I meant earlier and it's not that hard to comprehend. Despite my making that clear several times and requesting you to end this discussion here , you choose to keep pestering me like a child , therefore first time in my 3 years on this forum , I am having to put someone on ignore. I hope this works.

 

[Fattyacids]

Yeah because they had a higher GDP growth rate as well as that one child policy. Still I think without a one child policy India's drop of 60 % to 33 % poverty is impressive.

I have explained what I meant earlier and it's not that hard to comprehend. Despite my making that clear several times and requesting you to end this discussion here , you choose to keep pestering me like a child , therefore first time in my 3 years on this forum , I am having to put someone on ignore. I hope this works.

Both our growth rate are not uniform, your high GDP growth are not as high as China's. How can it not be factored in???

I presented you simple logic and reasoning, you called that pestering. You're the one coming up short in reasoning, then you lied, now backpedalling away now.

 

[Dem!god]

yea so much when China took out more than 600 million from poverty.

If you are so shameful and feel bad about India, why don't you come back here and do something about it..instead of sitting there.

 

[Kloitra]

yea so much when China took out more than 600 million from poverty.

Look at it this way.
428 Out of 690 million poor in 1980.
Now 400 out of 1250 million.

 

[Fattyacids]

lol everybody knows that we have to improve from where we are now...but it also cannot be neglected that we have improved a lot..
and key to improvement is high growth rate and slow population rate..
poverty cannot be eradicated overnite or in a 5 year plan...it will take time..after all we are have huge population..

Finally someone who understands the correlation of GDP growth rate and population. Slowing down the population ALONE isn't going to help if income doesn't increase. And income growth rate differs between china and india. that's a big factor. Your fellow nick_indian have some trouble understanding that. He thinks holding population growth the same (one-child), and india poverty level will be reduced to CHina's level.

 

[Jade]

GDP needs to be factored in because growth rate isn't constant between countries.

If India had the same GDP growth as China, poverty level would have been reduced drastically even without one child policy.

You can cut as much cost (one child) as you want, but if there's no income(GDP) coming in, you'll still remain poor, go bankrupt eventually.

You seems to mistake cause to effect. Small families educate their children better than large families do. An educated child in turn earns more than a uneducated child, hence poverty reduces faster in countries that have smaller families. GDP growth is the effect and family size is the cause.

 

[Fattyacids]

You seems to mistake cause to effect. Small families educate their children better than large families do. An educated child in turn earns more than a uneducated child, hence poverty reduces faster in countries that have smaller families. GDP growth is the effect and family size is the cause.

Another retarded logic from you, if the economy cannot provide jobs, how can the one child get income??? GDP growth is the numerator, population the denominator. This is simple math, not cause and effect.
Stop lying about your MBA.

 

[Jade]

Another retarded logic from you, if the economy cannot provide jobs, how can the one child get income??? GDP growth is the numerator, population the denominator. This is simple math, not cause and effect.
Stop lying about your MBA.

What is your PISA score ???

Anyway, even the worst economy will generate jobs.

 

[Fattyacids]

What is your PISA score ???

Anyway, even the worst economy will generate jobs.

Simple econometrics, you call it cause and effect. My standard is way beyond PISA

Of course there are jobs, those that pay peanuts, people hardly make ends meet. One look not just jobless rate, but local investment and measure real income level. Please, make only academically sound argument.

 

[Jade]

Simple econometrics, you call it cause and effect. My standard is way beyond PISA

Of course there are jobs, those that pay peanuts, people hardly make ends meet. One just need to look not just jobless rate, but investment made and measure real income level. Please, make only academically sound argument.

What is simple econometrics????

So in an economy who does fetch more....an educated youth or an illiterate youth?

 

[Fattyacids]

What is simple econometrics????

So in an economy who does fetch more....an educated youth or an illiterate youth?

You don't know what is econometrics and you claimed you have an MBA??

Without a strong economy, educated vs illiterate is inconsequential, both have equal chance of being jobless. IN fact, you can even argue illiterate would be less impacted because low income job is less sensitive to change in economic cycle.

 

[Jade]

You don't know what is econometrics and you claimed you have an MBA??

Without a strong economy, educated vs illiterate is inconsequential, both have equal chance of being jobless. IN fact, you can even argue illiterate would be less impacted because low income job is less sensitive to change in economic cycle.

At least I haven't heard 'simple econometrics' ??? Care to explain?

Anyway. how do economies grow?

 

[Fattyacids]

At least I haven't heard 'simple econometrics' ??? Care to explain?

Anyway. how do economies grow?

This is the territory of basic micro and macro econ. I doubt you even have a good bachelor degree. Don't waste my time.

 

[Jade]

This is the territory of basic micro and macro econ. I doubt you even have a good bachelor degree. Don't waste my time.

It is better shut-up than argue on something you don't know. Now don't waste my time.