En fin, ya hablé tantas veces del tema por acá que me da fiaca. Les dejo al Angry Economist que lo explica mejor que yo:
There is absolute poverty and relative poverty. For absolute poverty, we can say "If you don't have X, you are poor." Then, with an appropriate list of X (e.g. clean running water, indoor toilets, 1200 calories per day, clothes that are frequently washed, etc etc) then when we have reduced the number of people without X in half, we have halved poverty. That's great! It's a possible and worthy goal. We can even decide as a society to make some people poor again by redefining X, and then getting X to them. Clearly you can half poverty again and again and again. In time, you can eliminate poverty (although I suspect that the MOGW's would simply add things to X, because if poverty went away, the MOGW's would have nothing to do.)
For relative poverty, it is impossible to get rid of poverty. As long as one person works harder than another person, they will have more. As long as work is rewarded with wealth, they will have more. With relative poverty, as long as there are any rich, there will be poor. Whenever people try to measure poverty using a relative scale, or they speak of inequality, you can be sure that they mean to eliminate poverty by eliminating the rich.
Siempre recuerdo una propaganda creo que de Kerry en 2004 en la que una mina decía que no le alcanzaba para pagar la nafta del auto y la calefacción, por eso era pobre y el gobierno tenía que hacer algo.
ReplyDeleteClaro, ser un indigente es no tener auto, o tener uno solo.
Como bien dice el artículo, nunca vas a terminar con la pobreza relativa que es un invento socialista.
Lo que ocurre es que han inventado que la pobreza es ahora desigualdad.
El problema siempre es lo que tienen los ricos, no lo que tienen los supuestos pobres.
Es una cuestión de envidia, no de justicia.
Podemos estar seguros de que cuando alguien habla de “terminar con la pobreza” lo que busca en realidad es terminar con la riqueza.
ReplyDelete