Watch 200 years of history in 4 minutes

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

From Dr. Hans Rosling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_Rosling).

jbkSRLYSojo

Thoughts?

[Savage]

I don't know how someone can be so enthusiastic when talking about Imperialism.

[Tablo]

Cool graph, but he seems a bit optimistic about everyone getting into the top right corner. There will always be rich and poor people as long as there is capitalism. Also I would like to see the chart divided up based on things other than country because even wealthy countries have miserably poor and unhealthy people.

[Raightning]

Stupid as hell, and classic liberal/neoliberal bullshit. Even from the basest level, the graph from the beginning tries to downplay the gap with the logarithmic scale to hide the MASSIVE inequality between nations/regions (even while paying lip-service to it briefly), and of course his extrapolation and projection is classic reformist infantile rubbish. He's like a scientist that measures the growth of a mouse and predicts in 50 years it will be an elephant.

It's also pretty ugly and confusing to look at, which doesn't help.

[Tablo]

Stupid as hell, and classic liberal/neoliberal bullshit. Even from the basest level, the graph from the beginning tries to downplay the gap with the logarithmic scale to hide the MASSIVE inequality between nations/regions (even while paying lip-service to it briefly), and of course his extrapolation and projection is classic reformist infantile rubbish. He's like a scientist that measures the growth of a mouse and predicts in 50 years it will be an elephant.

It's also pretty ugly and confusing to look at, which doesn't help.
I thought it was pretty. :(

[ExUnoDisceOmnes]

Thoughts?

If you really look at the information, after 4,000 dollars in income is reached, the advancement in life expectancy slows massively. Better distribution of wealth would get everyone up there in terms of overall life expectancy

Additionally, we agree that capitalism is a necessary stage to reach socialism. But now that many countries have reached that 4,000 dollars and many that 40,000 dollars, and health is rising, capitalism is no longer necessary. His extrapolation that advancement will continue is incredibly poorly founded.

[Raightning]

I thought it was pretty. :(
Eh, if I'm being entirely honest it doesn't look bad in the aesthetic sense, but as an infographic it's pretty worthless.

[Tablo]

Eh, if I'm being entirely honest it doesn't look bad in the aesthetic sense, but as an infographic it's pretty worthless.
Well you're right about that. I gathered very little from the chart and his conclusions were weak. I think stuff like this can only really be understood with real research. Graphs make me happy though. :lol:

[NecroCommie]

He fails to realize that while countries as entities rush to the top right corner, internal differences remain where they were after the WW2 or worse. Globalization makes country comparisons irrelevant, and brings back class-analysis. Which he ignores.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think I've seen this bloke before. As a longer presentation he used the same tech to plot the same variables in alot greater detail in like a 15min presentation.

Nic.

[Rafiq]

This is irrelevant garbage.

That the bourgeoisie, in each country, got better living standards after the event of World War two?

It is a propaganda technique to try to tell the world that "Everyone is okay, we are doing good, no more starving people will exist, we are growing, everything is getting better, africa is getting better ect."

Which simply isn't true.

When you visit a third world country, you just want to slap people like this across the face, trying to say that Capitalism has done good for them.

I slap this man across the face on behalf of all working people across the globe!

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I think I've seen this bloke before. As a longer presentation he used the same tech to plot the same variables in alot greater detail in like a 15min presentation.

Nic.

Most likely. He helped invent Trendalyzer software.

[Political_Chucky]

I don't understand. Why is 40,000$ of income good? For a family of 5, that really isn't much. According to the graph, it may be better then the past, but that doesn't take into consideration inflation. Also, we could be living longer, but is the quality of life better? I'm pretty such its not suppose to answer those questions, but I guess it does show that people do live longer if there is any benefit to the graph.

Its a cool graph though. Reminds me of this one about peoples emotions from all over the world which maybe could answer the quality of life question I asked.
http://www.wefeelfine.org/http://www.revleft.com/vb/revleft/buttons/edit.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1980158)

[#FF0000]

I think ya'll are a little too rough on this thing. Things have gotten better over the past 200 years more in spite of, rather than because of capitalism, of course. I think technology is more the reason.

But either way, it's good that things have improved and I think it's good to be optimistic every once in awhile. Things today are better than they were yesterday, and tomorrow it's getting better.

[Tablo]

It will probably get a lot worse with the destruction of the environment, depletion or resources/peak oil, and over population though.

[#FF0000]

Oh, please. We're a long way off before that happens, no matter what peak-oil doomsayers want to say.

[Tablo]

I certainly hope so. :crying:

[A Revolutionary Tool]

What I want to know is who that orange country is that fell below the graph during WWII.

[Political_Chucky]

What I want to know is who that orange country is that fell below the graph during WWII.

http://www.gapminder.org/world/#$majorMode=chart$is;shi=t;ly=2003;lb=f;il=t;fs=11 ;al=30;stl=t;st=t;nsl=t;se=t$wst;tts=C$ts;sp=5.592 90322580644;ti=2009$zpv;v=0$inc_x;mmid=XCOORDS;iid =phAwcNAVuyj1jiMAkmq1iMg;by=ind$inc_y;mmid=YCOORDS ;iid=phAwcNAVuyj2tPLxKvvnNPA;by=ind$inc_s;uniValue =8.21;iid=phAwcNAVuyj0XOoBL_n5tAQ;by=ind$inc_c;uni Value=255;gid=CATID0;by=grp$map_x;scale=log;dataMi n=295;dataMax=79210$map_y;scale=lin;dataMin=19;dat aMax=86$map_s;sma=49;smi=2.65$cd;bd=0$inds=

I think this helps:)

The link leads to the graph which shows a lot more information then the video

[A Revolutionary Tool]

It was Ukraine...

[Hexen]

The man was obviously talking about the bourgeoisie's (the class he obviously represents) living standards how they are "getting better" compared to the 19th century but he was not speaking towards the working class though.

Note this video was originally made for bourgeoisie's ears to suit their egos while also used to sway workers attention from reality.

[Niccolò Rossi]

I think it's also worth keeping in mind that the GDP per capita plotted along the X-axis is logarithmic. It we were more honest and plotted it linearly, the stretch of the data horizontally would be much much more dramatic...

Nic.

[bailey_187]

Are people honestly saying that the living standards of the working class hasnt increased since 1810? wtf?

[bailey_187]

It will probably get a lot worse with the destruction of the environment, depletion or resources/peak oil, and over population though.

No it wont.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Watch 200 years of history in 4 minutes

Four minutes? I guess this isn't a Bob Avakian video then.


Snap! :P

[Hit The North]

I think ya'll are a little too rough on this thing. Things have gotten better over the past 200 years more in spite of, rather than because of capitalism, of course. I think technology is more the reason.

But either way, it's good that things have improved and I think it's good to be optimistic every once in awhile. Things today are better than they were yesterday, and tomorrow it's getting better.

Yeah, it's not like either Marxists or Anarchists deny that capitalism has played a progressive role in the history of humankind. The animation demonstrates the power of capitalist development in raising the material conditions, wherever it gets a foothold. But the animation also demonstrates the limits of this. After two hundred years of development why has the technology and know-how behind this increase in productive capacity not been applied universally in order to raise all people up? The answer lies, of course, in the very being of capitalism, the relations it is founded on and which propels it forward.

Then NecroCommie puts his finger on it: capitalist societies might become wealthier, but they also become more unequal and whereas the animation might want us to focus on the relation between nations, it always the relation between social classes that we need to focus on. It is the power of labour which lifts us up, but everywhere the labourer is put down.

[Tablo]

No it wont.
How would it not when all that eventually happens?

[Omi]

I think I've seen this bloke before. As a longer presentation he used the same tech to plot the same variables in alot greater detail in like a 15min presentation.

Nic.

YpKbO6O3O3M

[bailey_187]

How would it not when all that eventually happens?

It wont happen though.

[Tablo]

It wont happen though.
But we live in closed environment with limited resources. How will the resources not run out?? :confused:

[Triple A]

It is funny because of this:

One guy makes 1$ other guy makes 1000 $ , the average will be 500.5 $ and we will have a nice picture showing how the wealth increased.

[Political_Chucky]

It is funny because of this:

One guy makes 1$ other guy makes 1000 $ , the average will be 500.5 $ and we will have a nice picture showing how the wealth increased.

Exactly, The average isn't really a very accurate depiction either. I would much rather see the median.

Why? = http://www.bvmarketdata.com/pdf/Median-Mean.pdf (http://www.bvmarketdata.com/pdf/Median-Mean.pdf)

[ckaihatsu]

How about:










guerillas in the midst


-- ?


= )


Okay, first off, who the hell has 4 minutes anymore??? If we can't make some vast improvements in the cooking time for microwave ovens -- and fast -- I'm gonna fricking blow a fuse....


= )


Having watched it, I'll say that there *is* some ultra-leftism here, unfortunately, though several good criticisms have been raised, particularly this one:





the graph from the beginning tries to downplay the gap with the logarithmic scale to hide the MASSIVE inequality between nations/regions





Additionally, we agree that capitalism is a necessary stage to reach socialism.


Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, no.





But now that many countries have reached that 4,000 dollars and many that 40,000 dollars, and health is rising, capitalism is no longer necessary. His extrapolation that advancement will continue is incredibly poorly founded.


I'm glad to see the dramatic rise in life expectancy, though it cost far more than two world wars and tens of millions of lives lost. Capitalism could have been put down long ago and the same -- if not better -- results could have been achieved painlessly with workers' *conscious* control over societal development. And, as someone mentioned, it would be good to also see job and life satisfaction stats alongside, too....





I think ya'll are a little too rough on this thing. Things have gotten better over the past 200 years more in spite of, rather than because of capitalism, of course. I think technology is more the reason.


Yes.

I'll add that industrialization and urbanization were stressful, if marginal improvements, over rural poverty and oppression. It hasn't been until recently, with post-WWII modernization, that city life has become more *empowering* and *enjoyable* due to the availability of things like consumer goods....





But either way, it's good that things have improved and I think it's good to be optimistic every once in awhile. Things today are better than they were yesterday, and tomorrow it's getting better.


Hey, you could pick up where The Beatles left off...!


= )

[Steve_j]

YpKbO6O3O3M

Quite interesting, he highlights the radical improvement of child mortality rates under mao, then notice its stagnation under Deng despite the rapid increase of wealth. 4.03 This highlights very well the critisisms earlier about uneven distribution of wealth.

Like all stat based presentations the overall messeage depends on what you focus on, i think it is a very useful tool.

[Fulanito de Tal]

The x-axis seems linear, but is to the tenth power (^10). The x-axis looks like this:

400 -----------4,000----------40,000.

4,000-400=3,600 and 40,000-4,000=36,000. So, the difference between those to the far right and those in the middle is extremely higher than those in the middle and those in the far left. The graph is an illusion that makes us think that accumulation of resources is not as uneven as it is.

[Aurora]

If anyone is interested have a look at 1991 and all the former soviet republics flying backwards, quite interesting i thought.

Also the diference between the richest and poorest is interesting
1800-
Cape Verde -340
UK-2717
1900-
Lesotho -312
US -6624
2000
Burundi -444
Luxembourg -63924