Yes they ARE inflation-adjusted, this guy's an economic genius, he's not going to make a mistake that silly! I'm currently taking intermediate macro with Xavier, and this presentation has pretty much been what we've covered in class so far (just really broadly stated) so I can definitively say that (as he puts it) "Xavier is speaking the truth!"
Inequality which is greater in countries with a less even distribution have lower intergenerational mobility, which can mean the poor are staying poor. Yes, making it easier to turn ideas into a reality is one way to contribute to economic growth, but if the poor have no money to invest in business due to poverty contributed by lower intergenerational mobility or for various reasons, how can one dispel redistribution and inequality as affecting economic growth? Take a look at Corak's article "Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility."
I can't help but disagree to so many things he says. R&D not so important? If 8% of business ideas come from scientists, and there is ~6 million scientists in the world, it means 100 more times often ideas come from R&D than from regular people. Just saying.
He considers everyone in the 1700's poor because they earned less than $1000 a year. This analysis is a bit narrow minded and myopic cause he ignores the the concept of class and its dynamics in society. A land owner could have well earned less than $500 a year n the 1700's but he OWNED capital, and could easily buy the labor of others, and live on profits. Who cares how much you earn, if you OWN capital you are almost always better off.
Prior to 1700, which means going all the way back to the beginning of man's existence on earth, a tiny, tiny percentage of people were "wealthy," while the vast majority of people were in poverty. I think that was his basic point. For all practical purposes, everyone was poor. We can ignore the tiny number who had lots of wealth for those times. Today, by contrast, we have a middle class in Western societies, which didn't exist prior to the industrial revolution.
Where does he have his statistics from? From a US- concern? From the Development Economics department of Columbia University, where elitists are tought how to make money in the USA? The reliability of these statistics is to be proved. Also, he neglects inflation and the growth of population in his statistics. He can't just claim that in the last 40 years (which means 1972- 2012), the total number of poor people has fallen by 650 Million people, and ignore that there was a population growth of 3.27 BILLION people (3.83 -> 7.10)! These 650 Million "poverty-escaped" people are only 20% of those 3.27 Billion people that were added to population. And finally, if he (and not just him, but also other economists) think that economical growth, which means consumption, as he explains, is the solution to poverty, then this is really short-minded. If everyone lived and consumed like Americans do, we would need more than 4 earths, concerning the resources. So this principal only works for countires that are rich already, the 3rd-world-countries will never prosper by that.
Yes they ARE inflation-adjusted, this guy's an economic genius, he's not going to make a mistake that silly! I'm currently taking intermediate macro with Xavier, and this presentation has pretty much been what we've covered in class so far (just really broadly stated) so I can definitively say that (as he puts it) "Xavier is speaking the truth!"
Really illuminating!! Indeed all of them are common believed "truths"! Thanks!!
Of course the numbers are inflation-adjusted. They use standard constant 1990$.
Inequality which is greater in countries with a less even distribution have lower intergenerational mobility, which can mean the poor are staying poor. Yes, making it easier to turn ideas into a reality is one way to contribute to economic growth, but if the poor have no money to invest in business due to poverty contributed by lower intergenerational mobility or for various reasons, how can one dispel redistribution and inequality as affecting economic growth? Take a look at Corak's article "Income Inequality, Equality of Opportunity, and Intergenerational Mobility."
economists have math methods to eliminate the effect of inflation in our calculus...REAL gdp growth
I can't help but disagree to so many things he says.
R&D not so important? If 8% of business ideas come from scientists, and there is ~6 million scientists in the world, it means 100 more times often ideas come from R&D than from regular people.
Just saying.
his outfit, so Wierd ...!
Teaches in my university, he is known about this fact (collection of colourful blazers). Awesome teacher and better human.
He considers everyone in the 1700's poor because they earned less than $1000 a year. This analysis is a bit narrow minded and myopic cause he ignores the the concept of class and its dynamics in society. A land owner could have well earned less than $500 a year n the 1700's but he OWNED capital, and could easily buy the labor of others, and live on profits. Who cares how much you earn, if you OWN capital you are almost always better off.
Totally agreed Lilian!
+Lilian S If you look at the graph again it begins with 1970. NOT 1700.
Prior to 1700, which means going all the way back to the beginning of man's existence on earth, a tiny, tiny percentage of people were "wealthy," while the vast majority of people were in poverty. I think that was his basic point. For all practical purposes, everyone was poor. We can ignore the tiny number who had lots of wealth for those times.
Today, by contrast, we have a middle class in Western societies, which didn't exist prior to the industrial revolution.
Where does he have his statistics from? From a US- concern? From the Development Economics department of Columbia University, where elitists are tought how to make money in the USA? The reliability of these statistics is to be proved.
Also, he neglects inflation and the growth of population in his statistics. He can't just claim that in the last 40 years (which means 1972- 2012), the total number of poor people has fallen by 650 Million people, and ignore that there was a population growth of 3.27 BILLION people (3.83 -> 7.10)! These 650 Million "poverty-escaped" people are only 20% of those 3.27 Billion people that were added to population.
And finally, if he (and not just him, but also other economists) think that economical growth, which means consumption, as he explains, is the solution to poverty, then this is really short-minded. If everyone lived and consumed like Americans do, we would need more than 4 earths, concerning the resources. So this principal only works for countires that are rich already, the 3rd-world-countries will never prosper by that.
He literally says that economical growth is not about consumption, is about new ideas.
Useless