For almost all of human history, the norm for 99 percent of the population was poverty and deprivation.
Then, starting a few hundred years ago, something amazing happened. There was a sudden explosion of prosperity. In past years, I’ve shared two videos explaining this remarkable phenomenon, which is linked to the unleashing of free markets, the rule of law, and property rights.
- A video from Marginal Revolution University narrated by Professor Don Boudreaux.
- A video from Learn Liberty narrated by Professor Deirdre McCloskey.
Now let’s look at some similar data, but for a different purpose. Here are some fascinating charts put together by Professor Max Roser of Oxford. As you can see at the top, almost everybody used to be poor. But as you look below, you’ll notice that an increasing share of the world’s population is middle class or above.
There are three takeaways from this data.
The first conclusion, as noted above, is that the world is getting richer. Hundreds of millions of people have been lifted out of extreme poverty. That’s wonderful news.
The second conclusion, as seen by the red section of the chart, is that a modest bit of reform in India and China has paid big dividends (and, given the success of Indian-Americans and Chinese-Americans, I imagine those nations could become much richer with additional market-friendly reform).
But I want to focus today on a third conclusion, which is that pro-growth policies are the best way to help the poor, not redistribution driven by a fixation on inequality.
More specifically, notice how there was a lot of inequality in the chart for 1975, particularly compared to the chart for 1800. My leftist friends, with their flawed belief that the economy is a fixed pie, would instinctively assume that Europe and the Americas somehow became comparatively rich because Asia and Africa stayed comparatively poor.
In reality, the real story is that the economies of the western world expanded because they found the recipe for growth and prosperity.
And the 2015 chart shows that the rest of the world is finally moving in that direction as well (as confirmed by long-run data from Economic Freedom of the world).
What would have happened, however, if our friends on the left had control of global policy in 1975 and imposed high tax rates in order to redistribute lots of income from rich nations to poor nations? In other words, what would have happened if they imposed on the world the policies that they try to impose in various nations?
If that had happened, the world economy would have underperformed. As Thomas Sowell has explained, such policies penalize productive behavior and subsidize unproductive behavior.
It’s possible that such policies would have reduced inequality, to be sure, but global income would have been far lower.
Fortunately, we avoided that outcome and instead enjoyed a reduction in inequality caused by better policy and growth-driven convergence.
Which is exactly the lesson for helping the less fortunate in individual nations.
[…] by my Eighth Theorem of Government, it is far smarter to push policies that are designed to reduce poverty rather than reduce […]
[…] by my Eighth Theorem of Government, it is far smarter to push policies that are designed to reduce poverty rather than reduce […]
[…] far as I’m concerned, the huge reductions in global poverty in recent decades are the only evidence we need about […]
[…] far as I’m concerned, the huge reductions in global poverty in recent decades are the only evidence we need about the benefits of economic […]
[…] I prefer detailed long-run data on changes in poverty. […]
[…] I prefer detailed long-run data on changes in poverty. […]
[…] showing the entire world is far richer today than in the past – and this didn’t happen at the expense of the less […]
[…] showing the entire world is far richer today than in the past – and this didn’t happen at the expense of the less […]
[…] This data on global income also shows that the economy is not a fixed […]
[…] believing that the poor, middle class, and rich can all simultaneously enjoy rising incomes, click here, here, and here for […]
[…] First, he makes the should-be-obvious case that it’s possible for all groups in a society to become richer if the economic pie expands. I’ve shown this with U.S. data and I’ve shown it with global data. […]
[…] to the spread of pro-market policies, the entire world is becoming more prosperous with better life […]
[…] For more wonky readers, I suggest this data and this data about China and this data about the […]
[…] to the spread of pro-market policies, the entire world is becoming more prosperous with better life […]
[…] to the spread of pro-market policies, the entire world is becoming more prosperous with better life […]
[…] to the spread of pro-market policies, the entire world is becoming more prosperous with better life […]
[…] For more wonky readers, I suggest this data and this data about China and this data about the […]
[…] For more wonky readers, I suggest this data and this data about China and this data about the […]
[…] For more wonky readers, I suggest this data and this data about China and this data about the […]
[…] Amen. This analysis underscores my oft-made argument that inequality is irrelevant and that policy makers instead should have a laser-like focus on economic growth. […]
[…] Amen. This analysis underscores my oft-made argument that inequality is irrelevant and that policy makers instead should have a laser-like focus on economic growth. […]
[…] what it’s worth, I can show lots of evidence that growth is the best recipe for helping the less fortunate, even though folks on the left may […]
[…] argued, over and over again, that the best way to help the poor is to focus on policies designed to boost growth […]
[…] shared lots of evidence (over and over and over again) showing that market-driven growth is the best way of helping low-income […]
[…] P.S. There’s also data on how incomes have expanded over time for both the United States and the entire world. […]
[…] this position is certainly supported by the historical […]
[…] this position is certainly supported by the historical data. We are much richer than 50 years ago and 100 years […]
[…] One of my main goals is to help them understand what this is wrong. […]
[…] while I don’t worry about inequality when some people get richer faster than other people get richer in a genuine free market, […]
[…] so worried about rich people getting richer that they advocate for bigger government, which makes it harder for poor people to become […]
[…] to this theory, it’s not that challenging for nations to climb out of poverty, but it’s difficult for them to take the next step and become rich […]
[…] that already have occurred – particularly trade liberalization – have contributed to huge reductions in poverty in China and […]
[…] so worried about rich people getting richer that they advocate for bigger government, which makes it harder for poor people to become […]
[…] think growth is far more important, especially for poor people, which is what I said (using the amazing data from China) in a recent debate at Pomona College in […]
[…] think growth is far more important, especially for poor people, which is what I said (using the amazing data from China) in a recent debate at Pomona College in […]
[…] to recycle this cartoon every time I write on the issue (along with substantive analysis, including Max Roser’s numbers and the powerful Chinese […]
[…] parte da coluna de ontem 1 sobre crescimento global, pobreza e desigualdade, percebi que escrevi muitas colunas sobre […]
[…] that means pushing for more growth. We know from U.S. evidence and global evidence that better economic performance is the effective way to boost living standards for the less […]
[…] [IMG]file:///C:/Users/JORGEC~1/AppData/Local/Temp/msohtmlclip1/01/clip_image004.jpg[/IMG] […]
[…] and for all income groups to benefit. I explain how even small differences in long-run growth make a big difference over just a few decades and that it is very misguided to impose policies that will discourage growth by penalizing the rich […]
[…] that free markets and small government are a recipe for prosperity. And as a nation becomes richer thanks to capitalism, it’s quite likely that some people will get richer faster than others get […]
[…] faster and incomes should be climbing more rapidly. Especially at the bottom. Whether you look at global data or country-specific data, that’s an argument for free markets and small […]
[…] wish the data went back to 1980, but even these partial numbers are a tremendous confirmation of the hypothesis that free markets are the best way of helping the […]
[…] מאת: דן מיטצ'ל, 20.05.2017 […]
[…] written (many, many times) about how the best way to help the poor is to focus on economic growth rather than […]
[…] « Long-Run Global Growth and Lessons about Inequality and Poverty Reduction […]
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as “bad luck.”
Robert Heinlein
Then moving forward into the future, we will be drawing that vertical poverty line much further to the right, say around $100. Those will be the new norms of decency.
So those nations that fail to grow according to the current already accelerated norms, nations who engage in redistribution and thus experience trendline growths well below the world average, will first become middle income nations, and then eventually drop below the poverty line.
What once was luxury becomes wretched poverty, and even hippies start wanting it. Those who do not keep up sink in the rising worldwide tide.