This article made me reflect on the two alternative definitions of poverty. One, relative poverty, and two, what I call lifestyle poverty. The latter being split into ascending levels starting from $2.15 a day (below which you eventually die), with the next level reached at roughly a factor of 4. The factor of 4 making a qualitative difference in lifestyle in a practical non theoretical way.
Relative poverty has a social element which we will probably never escape. But, level 0 poverty below $2.15, also known as absolute poverty is down from 90% before the industrial revolution to about 8% today. I believe we will eliminate it entirely.
The next step is to eliminate the following level 1 poverty at incomes of $2.15 to $8.60. Then as we continue to grow over hundreds of years, we’ll continue to eliminate the higher levels one at a time. Perhaps one day Level 31 in said lifestyle poverty index will be the future relative poverty, but i’d still count that as a success.
Standard of living or lifestyle poverty is real and we can make progress on it. We will escape it one level at a time.
Relative poverty has more to do with status and our limitless wants that expand over time. From two pairs of clothes as a luxury to a need. For cars as a luxury to a need. From an internet connection as a luxury to a need. This relative poverty seems less important as it’s social and not physical.
Dynasties still have the effective term limit of the ruler’s lifespan. Term limits add dynamism to a system, with new men and women bringing new ideas. Death does not guarantee liberty, but it does change. Change preserves the possibility of liberty and not the thing itself. A monarchy is one of the least optimized examples, but forever leaders would be worse, tailoring an entire political system around a single person’s nature. Term limits do not guarantee good governance, but they prevent consolidation of power and stagnation. But term limits are just a law and can be overturned as they have been in some countries.