Secondly, growth is unevenly distributed, and so is doomed to fail at providing a basic standard of living for everyone. Globally, the richest fifth of the world takes home 74% of the income, while the poorest fifth gets just 2%. Since poverty is relative, growth will never fix it. It’s a mathematical impossibility. You could grow the world economy for a million years and still not make poverty history.
My goodness. One might think if you were one of tens of millions in China, India and Africa who have been attained a more comfortable, safe lifestyle in recent decades thanks to economic growth, you might look at your TV and your three meals a day, containing meat, and be pleased to no longer be in poverty any more. But apparently because the executives of Goldman Sachs make too much money, you have not in fact been lifted out of poverty at all, and are as poor as you ever were. The improvements in life expectancy and in child and maternal mortality that have accompanied growth in many countries are, presumably, simply imaginary (or is it that they are relative, too? After all, we now expect the executives of Goldman to live to 200, don’t we?).
Of course, while developed countries typically use relative measures to assess domestic poverty, the development community uses absolute measures - purchasing-power-parity income - to assess poverty ($2/day) and extreme poverty ($1/day) globally.
You might think you would take five minutes to understand that before declaring economic growth to be a bad thing, let alone creating a website called - genuinely! - ‘Make Wealth History.’