Ace of Spades
FULL MEMBER
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2017
- Messages
- 1,465
- Reaction score
- 30
- Country
- Location
If you say so... you literally only quoted the first few lines of my quote.
I'd take 22% of people being over a global threshold definition (of wealth) over just 7% being so any time, any where....its after all 3 times better in the end for development.
If you all want to argue and get stuck to the distribution being the best metric, logically you would be for perfect enforced income equality.
In which case please vote in the far left party that will do it for you and see where it takes you. All equally poor is likely just the start with that philosophy.
Similarly I would take doing better on multi-poverty index over some notion of absolute income poverty being representative enough (given varying purchasing powers).
The problem with that type of indexes is their definitions and quantification of subjective assessments. If you have water but it's not clean, if you have electricity availability but no means to pay for the bills or to buy necessary appliances, if you have shelter but made up of metal sheets with holes in the roof. That by no means define the real on ground picture.
If you all want to argue and get stuck to the distribution being the best metric, logically you would be for perfect enforced income equality.
In which case please vote in the far left party that will do it for you and see where it takes you. All equally poor is likely just the start with that philosophy.
For Pakistan it's riasate Madina, a social welfare state, that's what we want.