If you read Factfulness, you'll find that it's not a strange way to engage at all. One thing Hans Rosling proved and taught is that even well-educated, caring, attentive people are incredibly wrong about simple facts about global economics and health - so much so that, on his multiple-choice questions, every group he examined performed worse on their answers than if they simply guessed at random.
So yes, "Is this belief feelings-based?" is an incredibly important question.
So how does the question of the rapid reduction of extreme poverty relate to the "compounding power gap"? First, it shows that progress is being made, that the poorest of the poor are doing much better than they were as recently as two decades ago.
But more importantly, I do not believe you have demonstrated with facts and evidence that there is a "compounding power gap". You believe that there is compounding power gap, based on the fact that there is a power gap at all. But actual, fact-based evidence suggests that power gap (measuring by dollars as a proxy, since you didn't offer a standard of measurement for your power gap) is decreasing, and rapidly. With some exceptions, the poorer nations are increasing their wealth at a far faster rate than richer nations are.
It's a list of countries by GDP growth rate. I assume you're familiar with the miracle of compounding, since you used that word.
The first European country on the list is Ireland, at 13. The next is Hungary, at 40. The first former colonial power is the US, at 107, more than halfway down the list.
If you don't think that economic growth is a reasonable proxy for "compounding power gap", then what is?
You write very confidently, but don’t seem to have a good grasp of this topic, so I’ll give you a few pointers.
First, don’t use yearly growth rates when discussing long-term trends. The data is too noisy. Ten year averages should be your minimum for the topic at hand.
Second, GDP is not a useful way to detect the ways in which former colonies are crippled. There are several reasons, but just to name a few: it does not distinguish raw materials from refined goods and advanced industries (why do you think Lybia is on top of your list?); it does not reflect quality of life or security; it does not reflect independence from foreign interests; it does not reflect military power or the ability to influence global and regional affairs. There isn’t a single metric which neatly reflects every dimension of the problem (I never claimed there was), but as a starting point for further research, I recommend studying the UN’s IHDI report. You can find lists of countries sorted by IHDI. Another good thing to do is study the bottom third of pretty much any sorted list of countries - by IHDI, HDI, any variation of GDP or GDP growth - and ask yourself 1) “why are these countries in the bottom?” and 2) “how likely are these countries to be in the top third in 50 years?”.
Third, study the role of Trans-National Corporations in the world economy. How much do they contribute to the economic output of former colonies? To what extent are they headquartered in former colonial powers? To what extent are their profits, and capital gains realized by their shareholders, reinvested in former colonies vs. colonial powers? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Fourth, for a different take on the problem, study the racial wealth gap in the US, Canada and Australia. Study the development state of indigenous nations within those countries. Can you guess the root cause of this state of affairs? Can you spot a compounding effect?
Lastly, quoting from your favorite self-help book doesn’t make you magically smarter or more convincing, just obnoxious.
I hope these pointers will help you in your quest for “factfulness”.
And fwiw, I firmly believe that reading Factfulness and absorbing its lessons does make you smarter. Enough so that I would buy you a copy, if you promise to read it.
It's not weird to think a book can make you smarter, either. Assuming you believe reading and learning in general make you smarter (I assume you do), and that smart and engaged people are sometimes wrong (I assume you believe that as well), then it stands to reason that a book dedicated to understanding how smart and engaged people can believe incorrect things will make you even smarter than before.
You're making excuses in order to ignore my data. I've presented both current growth rates and long-term per capita growth for periods of over 50 years. You're just lying to yourself in order to avoid acknowledging that former colonies are now growing economically faster than former colonizers. Face facts.
Why is Libya at the top of the list? Probably due to the growth response to the cessation (or at least reduction) of civil war. That happens. And no, this doesn't take into account raw materials vs advanced production, which is a long-term growth concern for many countries. On the other hand, many former colonies are developing advanced manufacturing, particularly in Asia.
Military power and the ability to influence global affairs via violence is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Exploitation at gunpoint is no longer a viable economic model, and hasn't really been since WWII, which is why colonization ended in the first place.
Believe it or not, former colonies are independent nations with independent economies and independent goals, who don't just exist at the tolerance of great powers anymore. Your attitude towards them pretends to be supportive, but is actually utterly condescending. Really, please stop and think about that point.
I'm well aware of the role of trans-national corporations in this system (I use the phrase "neoliberal hegemony" pretty freely). But the simple fact is, when those corporations invest in former colonial economies, they're creating jobs and growth there, and there's a lot more opportunity there than in the fully developed economies of former colonial powers. That's why those economies are growing so fast. China in particular (a former colony itself) has invested heavily in its "Belt and Road" approach to investing in infrastructure to create mutually beneficial trade opportunities - building ports, factories, communications, etc.
And yes, I'm aware of the racial wealth gap in the US (which is a special case in many ways) and other countries. Been studying it for decades, actually.
Of course you think it's obnoxious. You're getting told that your condescending attitude towards former colonies and reactionary attitude toward their "oppressors" is wrong, that things are much better than you think they are. Being wrong is a bitter pill to swallow. But which is better... feeling good about being wrong, or being right?
So yes, "Is this belief feelings-based?" is an incredibly important question.
So how does the question of the rapid reduction of extreme poverty relate to the "compounding power gap"? First, it shows that progress is being made, that the poorest of the poor are doing much better than they were as recently as two decades ago.
But more importantly, I do not believe you have demonstrated with facts and evidence that there is a "compounding power gap". You believe that there is compounding power gap, based on the fact that there is a power gap at all. But actual, fact-based evidence suggests that power gap (measuring by dollars as a proxy, since you didn't offer a standard of measurement for your power gap) is decreasing, and rapidly. With some exceptions, the poorer nations are increasing their wealth at a far faster rate than richer nations are.
Consider this chart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_...
It's a list of countries by GDP growth rate. I assume you're familiar with the miracle of compounding, since you used that word.
The first European country on the list is Ireland, at 13. The next is Hungary, at 40. The first former colonial power is the US, at 107, more than halfway down the list.
If you don't think that economic growth is a reasonable proxy for "compounding power gap", then what is?