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

[Gandhi G in da house]

Sad, India will be compared to a country that has been in a state of war for almost a decade.

Not India's fault your policies were messed up.

Anyway , your economic policies gave you a headstart against India when we were socialist

I believe last when it was reported , Pakistan's income based poverty rate was 21 pc in 2010 and India's 33% in the same year according to the World Bank . However, India is doing better in HDI.

 

[Genesis]

One child policy =Less mouths to feed= Higher per capita income = More saving , spending and consuming power= Higher standard of living= Reduced poverty.

I have not for once denied the role of China's rapid GDP growth rate in poverty reduction but the one-child policy did complement it very well in helping China to reduce poverty. If Chinese had continued having 2,3,4 or 5 kids as they were having before, poverty would still have dropped quite a bit but not as much as it has.

I never understood poor people having more kids, why?

More hope for the family? IT didn't work for them why would it work for their child. HAve one or two, concentrate on them give them the best they can afford, give the children a fighting chance.

Also this poverty line is stupid, a dollar something a day? I can't even do 20 dollars a meal now days in Canada, how is it possible for anyone to live for a dollar something a day. BTW I know it's more expensive in Canada than India or China.

Some guy did a video on youtube, he lived on 30 Yuan, about 5 bucks a day in China, and it was two decent meals, and bad coffee to go with light breakfast, and a beer to end the day. So, if you want to take everything into account, probably 100 bucks a day is what you are looking at, Chinese wage is about that for a migrant worker more or less now days anyways.

 

[Okemos]

One child policy =Less mouths to feed= Higher per capita income = More saving , spending and consuming power= Higher standard of living= Reduced poverty.

I have not for once denied the role of China's rapid GDP growth rate in poverty reduction but the one-child policy did complement it very well in helping China to reduce poverty. If Chinese had continued having 2,3,4 or 5 kids as they were having before, poverty would still have dropped quite a bit but not as much as it has.

You still don't get it. If one child policy was to maximize economic benefits, it should be strictly enforced on minorities and rural residents since they are the poor. To the contrary, they are still having lots of kids. How is the one child policy even benefiting China as you claimed? Poor people in China are still breeding like ever before because to them, more kids mean more labor. But urban fluent residents choose to have few kids. In fact, in this regard, one child policy is hurting China since the percentage of children born to wealthy people is decreasing but percentage of children born to poor minority and remote rural residents is increasing exponentially!

Over all, population growth is a dynamic and natural phenomenon, we humans have no right to tell other humans how many kids they should have. The policy makers back in 80s are nuts and have no clue how population and economy are intertwined dynamically, not statically.

 

[bolo]

If it was so dumb then why your government used one child policy in the first place......and why suddenly your gov. felt to lift ban from if..in fear of loosing young work force..

Its called planning. Something your government is incapable of.

One child policy =Less mouths to feed= Higher per capita income = More saving , spending and consuming power= Higher standard of living= Reduced poverty.

I have not for once denied the role of China's rapid GDP growth rate in poverty reduction but the one-child policy did complement it very well in helping China to reduce poverty. If Chinese had continued having 2,3,4 or 5 kids as they were having before, poverty would still have dropped quite a bit but not as much as it has.

Didn't you agree with @Fattyacids that you were incorrect with your assumption about this?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

You still don't get it. If one child policy was to maximize economic benefits, it should be strictly enforced on minorities and rural residents since they are the poor. To the contrary, they are still having lots of kids. How is the one child policy even benefiting China as you claimed? Poor people in China are still breeding like ever before because to them, more kids mean more labor. But urban fluent residents choose to have few kids. In fact, in this regard, one child policy is hurting China since the percentage of children born to wealthy people is decreasing but percentage of children born to poor minority and remote rural residents is increasing exponentially!

Over all, population growth is a dynamic and natural phenomenon, we humans have no right to tell other humans how many kids they should have. The policy makers back in 80s are nuts and have no clue how population and economy are intertwined dynamically, not statically.

If Rural and minority Chinese women are still breeding like ever how is it that China's Total Fertility rate has suddenly dropped to 1.6 when in 1980 it was around 5 ? This is an effect of the one-child policy majorly.

 

[Dem!god]

Its called planning. Something your government is incapable of.

Oh bhai sahab...I was talking to my indian mate not you...
and stop lecturing on what my gov. is capable and incapable of..
look into your own country first then talk..

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Didn't you agree with @Fattyacids that you were incorrect with your assumption about this?

Don't try to act smart and troll mate. I can put you and all your friends who troll on ignore as well

 

[bolo]

Don't try to act smart and troll mate. I can put you and all your friends who troll on ignore as well

I read your spat between the two and you came to a conclusion that you finally agreed with him after he took you to school. I just don't remember the exact post #. How am I trolling for stating the obvious?

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

I read your spat between the two and you came to a conclusion that you finally agreed with him after he took you to school. I just don't remember the exact post #. How am I trolling for stating the obvious?

Like your compatriot you too have poor English comprehension skills if you believe any of that. you were trying to troll explaning me his messages when I clearly told him I was putting him on ignore. You guys are extremely childish and I am wasting my time. Anyway you too go on ignore. I can go on like this forever. No problem.

 

[SHAMK9]

LOL.state of war?
With whom?

Beloved Taliban

 

[Okemos]

If Rural ad minority Chinese women are still breeding like ever how is it that China's Total Fertility rate has suddenly dropped to 1.6 when in 1980 it was around 5 ? This is an effect of the one-child policy majorly.

Nobody is denying that one child policy has reduced population growth, gee. But one child policy does not benefit economic growth at all as I explained above; instead, it has various unintended consequences.

Mark my words, if India is to adopt one or two child policy, the people who will be strictly enforced are the wealthy, while the poor will still have lots of children. Plus, like any government policies, it's quite hard to effectively implement the policy on the poor who have nothing to loose but their lives, lol. What's the picture? you will see the bottom swelling while the top shrinking unless economic growth can outpace population growth of the poor.

 

[Gandhi G in da house]

Nobody is denying that one child policy has reduced population growth, gee. But one child policy does not benefit economic growth at all as I explained above; instead, it has various unintended consequences.

Mark my words, if India is to adopt one or two child policy, the people who will be strictly enforced are the wealthy, while the poor will still have lots of children. Plus, like any government policies, it's quite hard to effectively implement the policy on the poor who have nothing to loose but their lives, lol. What's the picture? you will see the bottom swelling while the top shrinking unless economic growth can outpace population growth of the poor.

It does not contribute to Economic growth but it does help in rapid growth of per capita income.

Secondly I don't believe that it's only the rich on China on whom the One Child policy has been implemented and the poor are still having kids like ever. If this was the case then China's fertility rate would not have gone down so dramatically and average age would not have gone up so drastically within a generation.

 

[shuttler]

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.

Brilliant arguments FA!
these losers dont know what is econometrics nor the impact of GDP on population and vice versa nor do they know Math is a set while arithmetics is just a subset of!

 

[haidian]

China lifted 618 million people out of poverty is because China's one child policy? that's the most stupid argument I ever heard.beside,China only has one child policy for city folks,most Chinese lived in the rural area back then. one child policy only makes China lose her well to do families babies.

I agree if we don't have one child policy, China's total GDP might have overtaken US already.

 

[rott]

Ok, let wait and see. Anyone here knows who is the real troll.

The troll is waiting to get banned again. You know who I am talking about lol