While I agree in general, I think normalization of poverty is inevitable even without any intention to keep it that way. The simple facts are food production is limited by soil depletion; fertilizers require large amounts of raw materials and energy to produce; reasonable residential areas close to jobs are all taken, and rivers no longer have enough water to flow to the sea. If you allow free enterprises, even with strong-arm regulations behind them, it would be extremely difficult to change these conditions by traditional means commonly used in the West. Chairman Mao achieved that by indirectly killing many people by policies. Conflicts cannot be resolved when there is resource shortage. Yes, some supreme arbitrator can force people to share, but inevitably the arbitrator becomes the first among the equals, as the EU Commissioner has demonstrated.
Please aim for more quantitative analysis in proposing solutions. Quite often, the controversies start because we don't have common definitions. And proper definitions really require trackable quantitative measurements, from global warming to wealth inequality. We need numbers to pinpoint the problems and numbers to justify solutions.
Thank you for your insightful comment. Quantitative analysis is invaluable when it comes to understanding problems and proposing solutions. Numbers help us identify trends, measure outcomes, and provide clarity in debates where definitions and interpretations can otherwise diverge. That said, I also think theory and geographical and historical context play an essential role in guiding how we interpret those numbers and the solutions we pursue.
I don’t entirely agree that resource shortages are the root cause of poverty. While resource management is undeniably important, I believe the way resources are distributed and controlled plays a much larger role. Policies—whether directly or indirectly—always have winners and losers. That’s why it’s key that the majority of people under a government truly influence those policies.
For example, in the case of Argentina, as I mentioned in this post, I highly doubt that many who voted for Milei fully understood the implications of his policies—such as turning back labor rights to the 19th century. Looking back, the labor and social policy changes of the mid-20th century were monumental in narrowing the gap between managers, employers, and employees. The data from this period reflects fascinating progress toward greater equality. Unfortunately, the neoliberal turn of the 1980s reversed much of this progress (and the reversing is ongoing), with elites pushing for deregulation and privatization under the guise of efficiency and economic growth.
So, while numbers are critical, they need to be paired with an understanding of the broader systemic forces at play. Without that, we risk reducing complex problems to a series of metrics without addressing the deeper power dynamics and historical patterns behind them.
Thank you again for your thought-provoking comment—these exchanges always make me think more critically about these issues!
Looks like I am more pessimistic than you are. After all, I am aged. While I fully agree that we do have a distribution problem, and that Karl Marx was not completely off the mark when he identified distribution inequality as a cause of social unrest. Most people would say Karl Marx did not provide a direction for solutions, I would agree. But that critique cannot be used to moot the critical issue of distribution equality. Ancient China's political formulation done before the Confucius time focused more on equality than opulence. Of course, "equality" here does not mean concepts like Universal Basic Income, which is an example of why Marxism failed.
In my interpretation, most people are really pursuing social justice as linearity, or proportionality, or meritocracy. Those who produce better and more should get rewarded more. Most people are really not so greedy to ask for UBI. The same can be said about the current distribution problem in the modern society. One simple symptom is the value of labor has been consistently overlooked after the Industrial Revolution.
I mention the quantitative approach really for the pinning down of policy details, not for the basic research to fully understand the problem with a deep appreciation of the historical context. I spent 37 years writing programs for my degree or paycheck. I can assure you that understanding the problem context, not only what the problem is, but also how the problem manifests itself in the past and now are absolutely critical in fixing every software bug and fixing it right.
The quantitative approach is meant to pin down policy details and for (tactical) conflict resolution. For example, the immigration issue. I am for immigration, at least immigration should be allowed. But I also believe the immigration process should be tightly controlled, qualifications and language preparation must be verified, and how many new immigrants per year should be decided according to the needs and capacity of the society. The decision should not be binary: either we allow unlimited immigration or we ban every immigrant. The same is true for taxation, abortion, death penalty, gun ownership, or even driver's license. Without the quantitative approach, all such debates tend to degenerate into shouting matches rather than policy details.
While I agree in general, I think normalization of poverty is inevitable even without any intention to keep it that way. The simple facts are food production is limited by soil depletion; fertilizers require large amounts of raw materials and energy to produce; reasonable residential areas close to jobs are all taken, and rivers no longer have enough water to flow to the sea. If you allow free enterprises, even with strong-arm regulations behind them, it would be extremely difficult to change these conditions by traditional means commonly used in the West. Chairman Mao achieved that by indirectly killing many people by policies. Conflicts cannot be resolved when there is resource shortage. Yes, some supreme arbitrator can force people to share, but inevitably the arbitrator becomes the first among the equals, as the EU Commissioner has demonstrated.
Please aim for more quantitative analysis in proposing solutions. Quite often, the controversies start because we don't have common definitions. And proper definitions really require trackable quantitative measurements, from global warming to wealth inequality. We need numbers to pinpoint the problems and numbers to justify solutions.
Thank you for your insightful comment. Quantitative analysis is invaluable when it comes to understanding problems and proposing solutions. Numbers help us identify trends, measure outcomes, and provide clarity in debates where definitions and interpretations can otherwise diverge. That said, I also think theory and geographical and historical context play an essential role in guiding how we interpret those numbers and the solutions we pursue.
I don’t entirely agree that resource shortages are the root cause of poverty. While resource management is undeniably important, I believe the way resources are distributed and controlled plays a much larger role. Policies—whether directly or indirectly—always have winners and losers. That’s why it’s key that the majority of people under a government truly influence those policies.
For example, in the case of Argentina, as I mentioned in this post, I highly doubt that many who voted for Milei fully understood the implications of his policies—such as turning back labor rights to the 19th century. Looking back, the labor and social policy changes of the mid-20th century were monumental in narrowing the gap between managers, employers, and employees. The data from this period reflects fascinating progress toward greater equality. Unfortunately, the neoliberal turn of the 1980s reversed much of this progress (and the reversing is ongoing), with elites pushing for deregulation and privatization under the guise of efficiency and economic growth.
So, while numbers are critical, they need to be paired with an understanding of the broader systemic forces at play. Without that, we risk reducing complex problems to a series of metrics without addressing the deeper power dynamics and historical patterns behind them.
Thank you again for your thought-provoking comment—these exchanges always make me think more critically about these issues!
Looks like I am more pessimistic than you are. After all, I am aged. While I fully agree that we do have a distribution problem, and that Karl Marx was not completely off the mark when he identified distribution inequality as a cause of social unrest. Most people would say Karl Marx did not provide a direction for solutions, I would agree. But that critique cannot be used to moot the critical issue of distribution equality. Ancient China's political formulation done before the Confucius time focused more on equality than opulence. Of course, "equality" here does not mean concepts like Universal Basic Income, which is an example of why Marxism failed.
In my interpretation, most people are really pursuing social justice as linearity, or proportionality, or meritocracy. Those who produce better and more should get rewarded more. Most people are really not so greedy to ask for UBI. The same can be said about the current distribution problem in the modern society. One simple symptom is the value of labor has been consistently overlooked after the Industrial Revolution.
I mention the quantitative approach really for the pinning down of policy details, not for the basic research to fully understand the problem with a deep appreciation of the historical context. I spent 37 years writing programs for my degree or paycheck. I can assure you that understanding the problem context, not only what the problem is, but also how the problem manifests itself in the past and now are absolutely critical in fixing every software bug and fixing it right.
The quantitative approach is meant to pin down policy details and for (tactical) conflict resolution. For example, the immigration issue. I am for immigration, at least immigration should be allowed. But I also believe the immigration process should be tightly controlled, qualifications and language preparation must be verified, and how many new immigrants per year should be decided according to the needs and capacity of the society. The decision should not be binary: either we allow unlimited immigration or we ban every immigrant. The same is true for taxation, abortion, death penalty, gun ownership, or even driver's license. Without the quantitative approach, all such debates tend to degenerate into shouting matches rather than policy details.