sankho

OK, so to be nice and avoid haha jokes about logical flaws, I'm reading that your argument is this --> that the article is "fundamentally a self-serving and dishonest narrative".

The only point you offer that relates to your actual argument is the author of the article is the CEO of kickstarter, so his promotion of less monolithic industries is ultimately self serving given that he profits off them - which is an interesting one but I'd contest that with the history and focus of kickstarter and their lack of employing any monopoly strategy.

By limiting entries to simple projects, not allowing anything purely political / fundraising driven, Kickstarter allowed for a vast sea of other crowdfunding sites to exist without ever threatening to take them or their market share over, despite Kickstarter being the site that popularized the crowfunding concept. The opposite of say, Uber's domination strategy, or a lot of other companies for that matter.

So... if I trust any company to express themselves without being self serving, it would be Kickstarter, for the reason that they had an opportunity to be the only major crowdfunding site, and chose not to based on what the founders wanted the company to be about.

hey look, an appearance from the amazing mr. strawman, capable of ignoring an argument's essence in favor of contradicting lesser points to appear correct, yet totally out of context! Amazing!

no mention of inflation in your link, only PPP. The article author also goes on to state that this isn't enough / as meaningful as you're making it out to be...

"And making sure everyone's making at least $1.25 a day isn't the end of the fight either. The world's median income is still only $3 to $4 a day. By comparison, the poverty line in the US for a family of four is $16.61 per person per day. Once under-$1.25-a-day poverty is eradicated, the world needs to set about eradicating under-$15-a-day poverty, which will be a substantially harder task."

Yeah I see "PPP" in the picture but nowhere is there an explanation of how they accounted and adjusted for inflation on a yearly basis. A link to the actual study would be a lot more informative. At any rate it doesn't address the moral concerns brought up in the article.

It doesn't seem like this chart takes inflation of the $ into account either, making it irrelevant over time. $1.25 was a lot more valuable even 30 years ago than it is today.