• Arete@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    55
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    This article is a classic “find some stats to back up my political position” nonsense. They admit that the world bank findings directly contradict what they want and so redefine “purchasing power parity” to suit their needs. Apparently a more socialist weighing of “basic needs” better suits an argument for socialism? Then they make the somewhat bizarre assertion that socialist China had better life expectancy and infant mortality than Indonesia, Brazil, and India at that time. Maybe that’s true, but wtf does it have to do with the merits of socialism?