THE 1%.

[Mike Sheehy]

Well, this is unfortunate. Apparently best and worst commentator is more worthy of comment than world inequality.
Makes you wonder.

[lawnseed]

Im just wondering why its necessary for america to "fight" communism? If some country thats not bordering america and doesnt hold any ties to speak of decides to follow a leftest agenda or dabble in communism. Why does it excite americans so much? Why do they care? Why would they attack that country and assasinate its leader or fund a coup. Why does it annoy them so much??

[Rossfan]

Because the big business moguls who really run the US can't exploit a Communist Country.

[muppet]

[Main Street]

Muppet, why are you posting that graph with no explanation as to your intent and purpose?
Perhaps it is to demonstrate the folly of considering such a graph as having any accurate contribution to a debate on poverty? 
It blatantly ignores the fact that the purchasing capacity of the USD has diminished greatly between 1970 and 2005.


In 2005, the relative value of $1.00 from 1970 ranges from $4.04 to $12.20.
from
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

[armaghniac]

Muppet, why are you posting that graph with no explanation as to your intent and purpose?
Perhaps it is to demonstrate the folly of considering such a graph as having any accurate contribution to a debate on poverty? 
It blatantly ignores the fact that the purchasing capacity of the USD has diminished greatly between 1970 and 2005.


In 2005, the relative value of $1.00 from 1970 ranges from $4.04 to $12.20.
from
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

Surely if you read it, it states that it is in 1987 dollars and so has been normalised for such things?

[Main Street]

Muppet, why are you posting that graph with no explanation as to your intent and purpose?
Perhaps it is to demonstrate the folly of considering such a graph as having any accurate contribution to a debate on poverty? 
It blatantly ignores the fact that the purchasing capacity of the USD has diminished greatly between 1970 and 2005.


In 2005, the relative value of $1.00 from 1970 ranges from $4.04 to $12.20.
from
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

Surely if you read it, it states that it is in 1987 dollars and so has been normalised for such things?

It's bull and blatantly obvious bull.
Here is a 2005 graph from Forbes  via the(World bank) in line with a 2005 purchasing capacity


Besides the obvious diminishing purchasing capacity of the dollar over the decades

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1

'The use of the poverty line of $1 a day had long come under criticism for seeming arbitrary and using poor quality and limited data thus risking an underestimate of poverty. The $1.25 a day level is accompanied with some additional explanations and reasoning, including that it is a common level found amongst the poorest countries, and that $2.50 represents a typical poverty level amongst many more developing countries.'

'The $10 dollar a day figure above is close to poverty levels in the US, so is provided here to give a more global perspective to these numbers, although the World Bank has felt it is not a meaningful number for the poorest because they are unfortunately unlikely to reach that level any time soon'.

50% of world population were living under that USD2.50 level.

[lawnseed]

Because the big business moguls who really run the US can't exploit a Communist Country.

Yes ross you got it. Its nothing to do with democracy or human rights death penaltys etc or any of the other smoke that the yanks start bellowing when it happens. Its because america is run by private banks.. And goverenent by the yank version of fine gael and fianna fail. The thought that a eglatarian or marxist type system could become established and flourish anywhere is more frightening to these guys than an ebola outbreak in new york city. And then theres the even more frightening thought of "the spread of communism" imagine haf a dozen countries running nicely and then someone suggests the peoples republic of america.. They'd nuke them!

[muppet]

Muppet, why are you posting that graph with no explanation as to your intent and purpose?
Perhaps it is to demonstrate the folly of considering such a graph as having any accurate contribution to a debate on poverty? 
It blatantly ignores the fact that the purchasing capacity of the USD has diminished greatly between 1970 and 2005.


In 2005, the relative value of $1.00 from 1970 ranges from $4.04 to $12.20.
from
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

Surely if you read it, it states that it is in 1987 dollars and so has been normalised for such things?

It's bull and blatantly obvious bull.
Here is a 2005 graph from Forbes  via the(World bank) in line with a 2005 purchasing capacity


Besides the obvious diminishing purchasing capacity of the dollar over the decades

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1

'The use of the poverty line of $1 a day had long come under criticism for seeming arbitrary and using poor quality and limited data thus risking an underestimate of poverty. The $1.25 a day level is accompanied with some additional explanations and reasoning, including that it is a common level found amongst the poorest countries, and that $2.50 represents a typical poverty level amongst many more developing countries.'

'The $10 dollar a day figure above is close to poverty levels in the US, so is provided here to give a more global perspective to these numbers, although the World Bank has felt it is not a meaningful number for the poorest because they are unfortunately unlikely to reach that level any time soon'.

50% of world population were living under that USD2.50 level.

The reason I didn't comment was because I didn't want to do what you just did and tell people what to think.

There are three types of people who will view such graphs:

1) the one who will agree immediately because it suits their agenda;
2) those like you who will disagree immediately because it suits their agenda (btw your graph is entirely compatible with mine if you weren't so prejudiced);
3) those who can think for themselves and make up their own minds;

I posted it for the people in 3).

[Main Street]

Muppet, why are you posting that graph with no explanation as to your intent and purpose?
Perhaps it is to demonstrate the folly of considering such a graph as having any accurate contribution to a debate on poverty? 
It blatantly ignores the fact that the purchasing capacity of the USD has diminished greatly between 1970 and 2005.


In 2005, the relative value of $1.00 from 1970 ranges from $4.04 to $12.20.
from
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

Surely if you read it, it states that it is in 1987 dollars and so has been normalised for such things?

It's bull and blatantly obvious bull.
Here is a 2005 graph from Forbes  via the(World bank) in line with a 2005 purchasing capacity


Besides the obvious diminishing purchasing capacity of the dollar over the decades

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1

'The use of the poverty line of $1 a day had long come under criticism for seeming arbitrary and using poor quality and limited data thus risking an underestimate of poverty. The $1.25 a day level is accompanied with some additional explanations and reasoning, including that it is a common level found amongst the poorest countries, and that $2.50 represents a typical poverty level amongst many more developing countries.'

'The $10 dollar a day figure above is close to poverty levels in the US, so is provided here to give a more global perspective to these numbers, although the World Bank has felt it is not a meaningful number for the poorest because they are unfortunately unlikely to reach that level any time soon'.

50% of world population were living under that USD2.50 level.

The reason I didn't comment was because I didn't want to do what you just did and tell people what to think.

There are three types of people who will view such graphs:

1) the one who will agree immediately because it suits their agenda;
2) those like you who will disagree immediately because it suits their agenda (btw your graph is entirely compatible with mine if you weren't so prejudiced);
3) those who can think for themselves and make up their own minds;

I posted it for the people in 3).

That's just bizarre Muppet. if it was your intention.

And you point nr 2 is just plain moronic,
I posted the graph in reply to Armaghniac's post, it was not to tell people what to think.

And if you look at the graph I posted, it gives 6 levels to look at world poverty numbers in 2005  and you claim that your miserly, blatantly  biased, singular graph  is entirely compatible with the one I posted ??  what are you smoking? The graph I posted has been composed mainly to highlight the folly of falling for the dollar graph, namely the dollar graph you posted.
I also provided a link to discussion of the various interpretations and even mentioned a few.

[lawnseed]

Google youtube "jfk to 9/11 a richmans trick" cant get the link up.
And jim corr too   

[muppet]

Muppet, why are you posting that graph with no explanation as to your intent and purpose?
Perhaps it is to demonstrate the folly of considering such a graph as having any accurate contribution to a debate on poverty? 
It blatantly ignores the fact that the purchasing capacity of the USD has diminished greatly between 1970 and 2005.


In 2005, the relative value of $1.00 from 1970 ranges from $4.04 to $12.20.
from
http://www.measuringworth.com/uscompare/relativevalue.php

Surely if you read it, it states that it is in 1987 dollars and so has been normalised for such things?

It's bull and blatantly obvious bull.
Here is a 2005 graph from Forbes  via the(World bank) in line with a 2005 purchasing capacity


Besides the obvious diminishing purchasing capacity of the dollar over the decades

http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats#src1

'The use of the poverty line of $1 a day had long come under criticism for seeming arbitrary and using poor quality and limited data thus risking an underestimate of poverty. The $1.25 a day level is accompanied with some additional explanations and reasoning, including that it is a common level found amongst the poorest countries, and that $2.50 represents a typical poverty level amongst many more developing countries.'

'The $10 dollar a day figure above is close to poverty levels in the US, so is provided here to give a more global perspective to these numbers, although the World Bank has felt it is not a meaningful number for the poorest because they are unfortunately unlikely to reach that level any time soon'.

50% of world population were living under that USD2.50 level.

The reason I didn't comment was because I didn't want to do what you just did and tell people what to think.

There are three types of people who will view such graphs:

1) the one who will agree immediately because it suits their agenda;
2) those like you who will disagree immediately because it suits their agenda (btw your graph is entirely compatible with mine if you weren't so prejudiced);
3) those who can think for themselves and make up their own minds;

I posted it for the people in 3).

That's just bizarre Muppet. if it was your intention.

And you point nr 2 is just plain moronic,
I posted the graph in reply to Armaghniac's post, it was not to tell people what to think.

And if you look at the graph I posted, it gives 6 levels to look at world poverty numbers in 2005  and you claim that your miserly, blatantly  biased, singular graph  is entirely compatible with the one I posted ??  what are you smoking? The graph I posted has been composed mainly to highlight the folly of falling for the dollar graph, namely the dollar graph you posted.
I also provided a link to discussion of the various interpretations and even mentioned a few.

What would be the point in discussing anything on the subject with you? Your above comments are bordering on psychotic.

As armaghniac pointed out, you didn't even read the graph.

And it is compatible with your graph, as the $1 level the difference is small enough to be accounted for the the 1987 versus 2005 datum. But again, what would be the point?

[seafoid]

Those global poverty figures are shite. India always manipulates its figures to give the illusion of progress and around 60% of the "global poor" with subsistence level incomes live in India.