Comments by "Louis Giokas" (@louisgiokas2206) on "Extreme poverty in China: Girl Scavenges for Food, Boy Sells Bottles, Elderly Drink Dirty Water" video.

The people in "poverty" in the US would be considered lower, or middle, middle class in China, and much of the world. Not long ago I volunteered at a food pantry in the suburbs of a large US city. The vast majority of the "clients" had cars. These were generally nice cars. At the time I had an older car (since replaced because it was getting too old) and, although it was a high-end model, it was not as nice as most of the cars of the clients. In the US, the poverty line is not a set number. It is a percentage of the income locally, in the case of the standards used by the food pantry. By the way, this pantry was a deluxe facility. Most of the food was donated by local supermarkets and restaurants. It was also all privately funded.
14
@samsonsoturian6013 Absolutely correct! By the way, many of "clients" I mention were overweight and some outright obese. Such people were probably in the majority. And this is at a food pantry. Just in general, many of our problems in the US are "first world problems" that people in the rest of the world find puzzling and just plain stupid. Actually, there is not a world-wide food problem. There hasn't been in a long time. I have read that we produce 1.5 to 2.0 times more calories than we need as a planet. The problem, as always, is distribution and cost. It has been so since I was young and became aware of the issue (over half a century ago). There were always famines here or there, often driven by war and conflict and the food would be found. The exceptions, in places like Mao's China during the Great Leap Forward were all caused by politics. Another example is the Holodomor in Ukraine. There was no shortage of food worldwide at the time. It was all politics. No, there is a bigger problem, especially of China and Russia get their way in reshaping the "world order". The problem is that the order, led by the US and its allies, has allowed anyone, anywhere to trade and become specialized. This means, and this is the crux of the matter, that many places have grown in population well beyond the carrying capacity of the land locally. This is fine if world trade is stable and safe. That period is about to end. The most glaring example of this is, of course, China. Africa is another example. Sub-Saharan Africa is one of those regions. Another example is Egypt. In the post WWII world order they switched from growing wheat to cotton. Don't forget that as far back as during the Roman empire they we one of the breadbaskets of the Roman world. Cotton is a lucrative crop. They could sell cotton, buy food from outside and pocket the difference. Their population grew so much that, even if they abandoned cotton production altogether and went back to wheat, they would still not be able to feed themselves. What is the result of all this? In a "multipolar" world, split into different spheres of influence, lots of people will starve. That's the third world problem, and it is coming, and it is China and Russia that will precipitate it.
2
@samsonsoturian6013 By the way, I have two things to add. First, it is your fault for getting me going on this. That is the humorous part. Second, and this is not humorous, is that the undercurrent of your comment is a little concerning. It sounds like Xi and the CCP when it comes to technology and trade, etc. There is a hidden assumption that countries and peoples are "entitled" to either food or technology, etc. That is blatantly untrue. If the people who grow the food and develop the technology don't get paid, then it won't be there, for anyone. That is the thing that is often left unsaid.
1