Not quite sure the point of your comment. This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing? The report you link to agrees with what they say is a problem (e.g. "In high-income countries, the rising concern
about shared prosperity is a reaction
to income inequality that has reached levels
unprecedented in the post-war period.") There is no contradiction between the top 1% getting richer and more global equality within the remaining 99%.
Oxfam no doubt have a political agenda, we could probably debate how clear it is and what exactly it is, but their political agenda doesn't particularly influence whether this article is correct, nor do your links seem to contradict it.
> This article says nothing about whether poverty as a whole is decreasing?
They are saying the inequalities are growing, whereas the world bank report says the inequalities in income are shrinking progressively. That's a very different view.
I've skimmed the report you linked to, and I really don't see the contradiction. E.g. look at the quote below, taken from several on inequality:
"The second WBG goal of boosting shared
prosperity is new and opportune. It shifts the focus in
evaluating economic development from average income
growth to income growth of the bottom 40 percent. Indicators
proxying the socioeconomic status of the bottom
40 percent of the population, have shown little improvement,
even though the growth of incomes of the bottom
40 percent of the population has not been slower than
that of the general population in many countries. This
growing inequality in basic living standards is worrisome".
I don't see anything that contradicts the Oxfam report, while there are some comments that seem broadly in line with it. Overall, the broad thrust of both seem in roughly the same direction, although they do take different views.
Again the inequalities in income shrinking progressively shown in the interactive presentation is between countries. It looks at incomes below 100k USD, which is not particularly relevant to a debate on the top global 1%.
I'm sure there's a debate to be had on how much inequality restricts growth. Perhaps it's not correct when Oxfam says that reducing inequality could improve the overall size of the pie. But I see little in your links to contradict that at first glance. Maybe you could point out more specific grounds for your views?
Inequalities are shrinking not because everyone is getting richer but because the middle class is being hollowed out. People who used to be middle income earners are now low income earners making them more in line with the working class who were always low income earners. #progress
At least in the US more people have moved up out of the middle class and into the upper tiers, than have moved down and out of it. That is true over 15, 30, 45 year spans.
Progress indeed. The middle class is getting richer more than they're getting poorer.
Indeed witness the successes of Brazil! A country under the direction of US capitalism since 1964" with massive natural resources, no nearby enemies ... It's got very dire poverty and extreme wealth inequality.
Vs the countries in Eastern Europe with none of those advantages. Most Brazilians would kill to live like an average person from there.
I don't understand your point, poverty in Eastern Europe has fallen tremendously after the switch to capitalism, but you're saying it has nothing to do with it?
Inequalities might have risen a bit though, I don't know.
yeah, he really cut his own branch very efficiently... we had central planning (with heavy guidance from those fckers from Moscow that invaded us in '68) that just didn't work in long term. People were considering bananas and oranges exotic hard-to-get stock in shops with empty shelves. I recall my parents standing 2 hour queues in crazy weekend hours in -15 Celsius just to get their son some fruit with vitamin C (or fresh bread).
Capitalism ain't perfect, far from it, but what we had here was a major clusterfck, no thank you. And what changed is move to open economy, call it capitalism if you want. With its own warts and issues, but much better overall.
Previous regime got the worst out of people, this at least tries to do the opposite.
Compared to Brazil where people starve to death, life expectancy is way lower, educational standards, medical standards, virtually every social measurement is way lower.
The world is about to enter a deflationary period. Perhaps capitalists are not the geniuses you make them out to be and just got lucky. Correlation != causation etc etc
Contrary to popular belief, there can be economic growth during periods of deflation, as demonstrated by the economist Gary Shilling.
Paul Buchheit gave a presentation in London which understood capitalism as a technology. I think that is the right way to regard it.
Unfortunately, over the last 30 years Western society has turned capitalism into an ideology, something to be worshipped and bowed down to.
The central banks are turning off the money taps, growth is pretty stagnant across all major economies (bar the US and UK). Wealth inequality is rising while automation is arriving with a bang putting people out of their jobs and at an increasing rate and also putting downward pressure on prices as manufacturing costs fall, meaning the masses won't be spending much. China was a major driver of global economic growth but is undergoing a huge correction, Brazil has been in a recession since last year, Russia is suffering under sanctions, the Eurozone is becoming Japan mark 2, the price of oil is dropping like never before affecting the Middle East's ability to grow (notwithstanding the war currently ravaging the area). This all points to a period deflation.
Only people with money can make money with economic foresights.
Oxfam no doubt have a political agenda, we could probably debate how clear it is and what exactly it is, but their political agenda doesn't particularly influence whether this article is correct, nor do your links seem to contradict it.