Scan barcode
A review by cavalary
Marea evadare. Sănătatea, bogăția și originile inegalității by Angus Deaton
2.0
[EN: (RO below)]
Expected an infuriating rose-tinted view of the present, and it does start that way, but it also makes plenty of good points, such as the value of knowledge over wealth and growth, the fact that things quite often get worse, and definitely that market forces can’t be trusted with progress and public works and policies are needed. The section about poverty in the USA, which applies in general, is also surprisingly good, as is the later one about measuring poverty, plus most of the section about politics and inequality and most of that chapter’s conclusions.
But population growth being clearly listed as positive is infuriating, as is the rant against population control, spewing the usual idiocies, and the repeated assumption that life is in itself worth living. Same goes for stating that inequality can be good because it can show the way to those who are behind, and while saying that progress creates inequality is fair, it doesn’t really tackle unfairness, injustice, why wealth would determine who benefits first. Actually, the author seems to often fail to grasp the limitations created by lack of money when goods and services are just business, even repeatedly wondering why the knowledge and developments that work in wealthy countries fail to bring the same benefits to poor ones and mentioning social acceptability as a likely answer! And he flits between positions, not taking stances and repeatedly seeming to change conclusions. For example, contrary to the good points mentioned above, still trusting and relying on the free market too much, as well as the impossible concept of endless growth, or failing to grasp obstacles and largely blaming the worse off in the part about labor market inequality, or stating that poverty may be overevaluated and listing particularly low thresholds for it. And then there’s the chapter about aid, which makes some good points about potential problems but has utterly dreadful conclusions and recommendations, largely boiling down to “hands off and let them handle things themselves”… And that USA and Sweden example, offered in support of that stance, is something that would actually be great!
[RO:]
Ma asteptam la o enervanta imagine in roz a prezentului, si asa incepe, dar exprima si destule idei bune, cum ar fi valoarea superioara a cunoasterii fata de bogatie si crestere, faptul ca lucrurile deseori se inrautatesc, si cu siguranta ca nu se poate avea incredere in fortele pietei pentru progres si sunt necesare lucrari si politici publice. Sectiunea despre saracia in SUA, care se aplica in general, este de asemenea surprinzator de buna, si la fel si cea care urmeaza mai tarziu despre masurarea saraciei, plus majoritatea sectiunii despre politica si inegalitate si majoritatea concluziilor acelui capitol.
Dar prezentarea clara a cresterii populatiei ca lucru pozitiv e enervanta, la fel cum e si vorbaria impotriva controlului populatiei, debitand idioteniile obisnuite, si presupunerea repetata ca viata in sine merita traita. La fel si afirmatia ca inegalitatea poate fi buna pentru ca arata calea celor care sunt in urma, si desi sa spui ca progresul creeaza inegalitate e corect, nu prea abordeaza incorectitudinea, nedreptatea, de ce bogatia ar determina cine beneficiaza mai intai. De fapt, autorul pare deseori sa nu poata sa inteleaga limitarile create de lipsa banilor cand bunurile si serviciile sunt doar o afacere, chiar intrebandu-se repetat de ce cunoasterea si dezvoltarea care functioneaza in tarile bogate nu aduc aceleasi beneficii celor sarace si mentionand acceptabilitatea sociala ca raspuns probabil! Si zburda intre pozitii, nu isi asuma unele si pare a schimba repetat concluziile. De exemplu, contrar ideilor bune mentionate mai sus, tot are incredere in si se bazeaza pe piata libera prea mult, precum si pe conceptul imposibil de crestere infinita, sau nu poate intelege obstacolele si in mare parte da vina pe cei care o duc rau in partea despre inegalitatea pe piata muncii, sau sustine ca saracia poate fi supraevaluata si listeaza praguri deosebit de mici pentru aceasta. Si apoi este capitolul despre ajutoare, care prezinta niste idei bune legate de potentialele probleme dar are concluzii si recomandari absolut groaznice, in mare rezumandu-se la "luati mainile si lasati-i sa se descurce singuri"… Iar acel exemplu cu SUA si Suedia, oferit pentru a sustine aceasta pozitie, e ceva ce de fapt ar fi extraordinar!
Expected an infuriating rose-tinted view of the present, and it does start that way, but it also makes plenty of good points, such as the value of knowledge over wealth and growth, the fact that things quite often get worse, and definitely that market forces can’t be trusted with progress and public works and policies are needed. The section about poverty in the USA, which applies in general, is also surprisingly good, as is the later one about measuring poverty, plus most of the section about politics and inequality and most of that chapter’s conclusions.
But population growth being clearly listed as positive is infuriating, as is the rant against population control, spewing the usual idiocies, and the repeated assumption that life is in itself worth living. Same goes for stating that inequality can be good because it can show the way to those who are behind, and while saying that progress creates inequality is fair, it doesn’t really tackle unfairness, injustice, why wealth would determine who benefits first. Actually, the author seems to often fail to grasp the limitations created by lack of money when goods and services are just business, even repeatedly wondering why the knowledge and developments that work in wealthy countries fail to bring the same benefits to poor ones and mentioning social acceptability as a likely answer! And he flits between positions, not taking stances and repeatedly seeming to change conclusions. For example, contrary to the good points mentioned above, still trusting and relying on the free market too much, as well as the impossible concept of endless growth, or failing to grasp obstacles and largely blaming the worse off in the part about labor market inequality, or stating that poverty may be overevaluated and listing particularly low thresholds for it. And then there’s the chapter about aid, which makes some good points about potential problems but has utterly dreadful conclusions and recommendations, largely boiling down to “hands off and let them handle things themselves”… And that USA and Sweden example, offered in support of that stance, is something that would actually be great!
[RO:]
Ma asteptam la o enervanta imagine in roz a prezentului, si asa incepe, dar exprima si destule idei bune, cum ar fi valoarea superioara a cunoasterii fata de bogatie si crestere, faptul ca lucrurile deseori se inrautatesc, si cu siguranta ca nu se poate avea incredere in fortele pietei pentru progres si sunt necesare lucrari si politici publice. Sectiunea despre saracia in SUA, care se aplica in general, este de asemenea surprinzator de buna, si la fel si cea care urmeaza mai tarziu despre masurarea saraciei, plus majoritatea sectiunii despre politica si inegalitate si majoritatea concluziilor acelui capitol.
Dar prezentarea clara a cresterii populatiei ca lucru pozitiv e enervanta, la fel cum e si vorbaria impotriva controlului populatiei, debitand idioteniile obisnuite, si presupunerea repetata ca viata in sine merita traita. La fel si afirmatia ca inegalitatea poate fi buna pentru ca arata calea celor care sunt in urma, si desi sa spui ca progresul creeaza inegalitate e corect, nu prea abordeaza incorectitudinea, nedreptatea, de ce bogatia ar determina cine beneficiaza mai intai. De fapt, autorul pare deseori sa nu poata sa inteleaga limitarile create de lipsa banilor cand bunurile si serviciile sunt doar o afacere, chiar intrebandu-se repetat de ce cunoasterea si dezvoltarea care functioneaza in tarile bogate nu aduc aceleasi beneficii celor sarace si mentionand acceptabilitatea sociala ca raspuns probabil! Si zburda intre pozitii, nu isi asuma unele si pare a schimba repetat concluziile. De exemplu, contrar ideilor bune mentionate mai sus, tot are incredere in si se bazeaza pe piata libera prea mult, precum si pe conceptul imposibil de crestere infinita, sau nu poate intelege obstacolele si in mare parte da vina pe cei care o duc rau in partea despre inegalitatea pe piata muncii, sau sustine ca saracia poate fi supraevaluata si listeaza praguri deosebit de mici pentru aceasta. Si apoi este capitolul despre ajutoare, care prezinta niste idei bune legate de potentialele probleme dar are concluzii si recomandari absolut groaznice, in mare rezumandu-se la "luati mainile si lasati-i sa se descurce singuri"… Iar acel exemplu cu SUA si Suedia, oferit pentru a sustine aceasta pozitie, e ceva ce de fapt ar fi extraordinar!