- cross-posted to:
- notthechinabadtimes
- cross-posted to:
- notthechinabadtimes
Let’s see what this article from 2020 has to say about China successfully managing to eliminate extreme poverty:
"But the village, one of six in Gansu visited by The New York Times without government oversight, is also a testament to the considerable cost of the ruling Communist Party’s approach to poverty alleviation. That approach has relied on massive, possibly unsustainable subsidies to create jobs and build better housing.
Local cadres fanned out to identify impoverished households — defined as living on less than $1.70 a day. They handed out loans, grants and even farm animals to poor villagers. Officials visited residents weekly to check on their progress.
“We’re pretty sure China’s eradication of absolute poverty in rural areas has been successful — given the resources mobilized, we are less sure it is sustainable or cost effective,” said Martin Raiser, the World Bank country director for China."
Hm…unsustainable you say? Well it’s now four years later and it seems things have only continued to get better and better. And not “cost-effective”? Well yes, if you’re a capitalist parasite then spending money to lift people out of poverty probably isn’t “cost-effective”. But the people who no longer have to live in the same miserable conditions they endured before sure seem to think it’s been pretty effective for them.
What exactly in their minds make it unsustainable? What do they think that the human beings that they’ve helped would evaporate? Do they think that the food that feeds the nation will suddenly not sprout from the soil? Will the buildings they reside in levitate away?
It’s all about allowing liberals to continue to be smug about something. “Oh China may have improved the lives of their people by magnitudes but they will just collapse sooner and be worse than us again in the future.” Then they go about their brunch and continue to smell their own farts all day long.
The news doesn’t have to give reasons, only claim China will be worse off because it’s what libs need to hear.