Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
poverty can be most feasibly defined, imho, by certain objective measures.  infant mortality, malnutrition, educational access and follow-through, security of housing (or any housing), food security, freedom of mobility, average lifespan and causes of premature death.

if you have a substantial number of people whose lives are curtailed below the national average lifespan due to causes associated with deprivation -- malnutrition, exposure, life in insecure "war zones" rife with violence and virtually unpoliced, arbitrary violence from whatever police presence there is -- then I think it is safe to say that you have substantial poverty.  

it is possible to be "wealthier" in terms of good diet, personal security, health and longevity as a cash-poor peasant in a supportive cultural matrix than as a working-poor American through whose hands more dollars flow each year.  so I would stick to actuarial stats if I were trying to figure this out.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

by DeAnander (de_at_daclarke_dot_org) on Thu Oct 13th, 2005 at 05:18:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows: