Critique about End of Poverty
The End of Poverty.
This is a movie about how poverty will endure as long as capitalism thrives. Diaz connects the history of colonialism with the history of Western capitalism. He offers up a slew of talking-head academics and politics, ranging from Nobel economists Amartya Sen and he takes his cameras into some of the poorest regions of the world. Statistics showed in the film that, "In Latin America the richest 1 percent of the population receives over 400 times as much income as the poorest 1 percent," or, "the richest 1 percent of the world's population owns 30 percent of the wealth." These statistics doesn't show the whole story, nor do they tell that capitalism is the thing to be blamed, not even capitalism given credit to the progress anywhere in the world. The 4 countries exposed where Malawi, Bangladesh, India and China which broadly correspond to four ‘stages’ of development. Malawi represents the four billion people trapped in extreme poverty, living on less than $1 a day. Bangladesh represents the poor, or the 1.5 billion people living on between $1-$2/ day. India is provided as an example of a country that is increasingly populated with people on ‘middle incomes’. And China which is again like India, there are millions who live in poverty, but parts of China are increasingly coming to resemble the West. Poverty is not uniformly distributed across the globe, there are rich and poor people in every country, although most of the poor live in three regions, South(30%) and East(15%) Asia and Sub Saharan Africa(40% of the population.) Some reasons why some countries fail to achieve economic growth, is because some people are trapped to poverty, the poor doesn't have the ability to move out, because when people are hungry, they tend to use all their energy into survival and there is no capacity to save anything for the future. Another reason is the trade barriers, some countries economies are crippled by unfair trade rules. Some reasons are because
This is a movie about how poverty will endure as long as capitalism thrives. Diaz connects the history of colonialism with the history of Western capitalism. He offers up a slew of talking-head academics and politics, ranging from Nobel economists Amartya Sen and he takes his cameras into some of the poorest regions of the world. Statistics showed in the film that, "In Latin America the richest 1 percent of the population receives over 400 times as much income as the poorest 1 percent," or, "the richest 1 percent of the world's population owns 30 percent of the wealth." These statistics doesn't show the whole story, nor do they tell that capitalism is the thing to be blamed, not even capitalism given credit to the progress anywhere in the world. The 4 countries exposed where Malawi, Bangladesh, India and China which broadly correspond to four ‘stages’ of development. Malawi represents the four billion people trapped in extreme poverty, living on less than $1 a day. Bangladesh represents the poor, or the 1.5 billion people living on between $1-$2/ day. India is provided as an example of a country that is increasingly populated with people on ‘middle incomes’. And China which is again like India, there are millions who live in poverty, but parts of China are increasingly coming to resemble the West. Poverty is not uniformly distributed across the globe, there are rich and poor people in every country, although most of the poor live in three regions, South(30%) and East(15%) Asia and Sub Saharan Africa(40% of the population.) Some reasons why some countries fail to achieve economic growth, is because some people are trapped to poverty, the poor doesn't have the ability to move out, because when people are hungry, they tend to use all their energy into survival and there is no capacity to save anything for the future. Another reason is the trade barriers, some countries economies are crippled by unfair trade rules. Some reasons are because