I was wondering, is there a similar mechanism at work in evaluating poverty? That is -- could it possibly be that some of the people that are presently listed as living on less than a $1 day are not starving, but are subsistence farming, and that when we double their incomes to $2 day, it means in some cases that actually that we've removed their subsistence and are paying them starvation wages? So that the pyramid of poverty of countries measured by the average wage per day may be misleading -- the ones on the bottom may not be as bad off as the quintile above them?
Michael
On Sat, 3 Mar 2001, Michael Perelman wrote:
> You are correct. You can add to the privatization effect the fact the
> many of the activities were not commodified before -- now they are
> counted in GDP.
>
> Rob Schaap wrote:
>
> > Now, it occurs to me that capitalist development 'take-off' moments are
> > marked by an appropriation of something - enclosure, and/or privatisation,
> > and/or commodification of something (often a whole way of life) not
> > formerly commodified. That means 'economic growth' can't help but be
> > dramatic, as stuff without formal market value, and/or without formal
> > profits, and/or without any recourse to market transactions at all could
> > well equal zero on the national accounts. They suddenly appear on the
> > accounts purely by virtue of a formal change of status, don't they? So, as
> > the accounts soar, you actually get people losing their access to a
> > livelihood, and/or public services and/or a tenable social network of
> > collective-life-sustenance.
> >
> > Et voila! A potent accounting trick proves unfettered capitalism is in the
> > interests of the world's poor whilst it actually starves 'em!
> >
> > Is that a correct answer for the antiglobalist to give? And, if so, is it
> > a decisive answer?
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com