> wealth inequality doesn't mean more poor people.
Wealth, inequality, and poor are not well-defined.
Using the typical measures:
poor being near the poverty line for an area
wealthy being access to capital (be it over 100x the poverty wealth line or double the average) and inequality, the gap in absolute terms from top to average. The pareto principle will always illustrate how greater inequality defines that there are more poor people, even when the poverty line changes. Abstract equations, notwithstanding.
> The idea that the food availabe to people is getting worse or less
Ironically, the beef industry may be kept on life support due to the ongoing climate change. New grazelands will appear from beneath the tundra across the world offering another few generations of opportunity. Buy your land in the US Dakotas for your grandchildren. It's a golden opportunity.
it's a fun game: define poverty in terms of wealth inequality and presto if inequality goes up, poverty does too. But here is the thing that we forgot in the west because we essentialy abolished it: poverty is about material depreviation and that happens to be the one thing about it that would actually stunt IQ. We don't have material deprivation, not in Norway nor anywhere else in Western Europe, certainly not at an increasing rate. We have access to all the calories we want and at prices and qualities unequaled in human history. We also have endless free books btw.
> bananas
It should be obvious that Europeans don't need bananas for proper development. In addition that has nothing to do with poverty.
Also, fascinating that if you haphazardly connect the hand wringing topic du-jour with anything at all you get people
that scour the internet for even the tiniest scrap of evidence for you.
> Yours isn't any more valid than theirs, so what did you add to the discussion?
At least I know some economics and history so of course my perspective is more valid. There has never been a time or place where everyone was better off materially and if you are not aware you and OP should start reading some of those books.
> In addition that has nothing to do with poverty.
Given these are orthogonal situations, I don't know why you think I said they are connected. I was speaking to the valid perspective of change in the food chain.
> At least I know some economics and history so of course my perspective is more valid
Appealing to your own authority? What about everyone else? Not compelling.
> Also, fascinating that if you haphazardly connect the hand wringing topic du-jour
Bringing something to the table should be the defacto approach. Bring something to support your views, other than rhetoric. You'll be a more effective poster (and speaker) if there's something there to talk about. Good luck with whatever.
Wealth, inequality, and poor are not well-defined. Using the typical measures: poor being near the poverty line for an area wealthy being access to capital (be it over 100x the poverty wealth line or double the average) and inequality, the gap in absolute terms from top to average. The pareto principle will always illustrate how greater inequality defines that there are more poor people, even when the poverty line changes. Abstract equations, notwithstanding.
> The idea that the food availabe to people is getting worse or less
The amount of food, available, is changing. The most popular bananas (https://www.sciencealert.com/new-study-confirms-that-bananas...), beef, fish (http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/endangered_species/cetaceans...), are all in decline for differing reasons. So there's a little truth to it from a perspective. Yours isn't any more valid than theirs, so what did you add to the discussion?
Ironically, the beef industry may be kept on life support due to the ongoing climate change. New grazelands will appear from beneath the tundra across the world offering another few generations of opportunity. Buy your land in the US Dakotas for your grandchildren. It's a golden opportunity.