As if their bad stats are bad enough, I've never seen a SINGLE Oxfam report that discussed or took into account the benefits that arise from owning bunnies. Not one! Despite them being super cute.
I recall in the 90s that I'd see emotionally manipulative ads ("every X seconds a child dies in Africa") in a similar vein so I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
Ties in with David Shor's observation that the capture of liberal organizations by activists (instead of organizations accountable to people who vote for leaders, like unions) is a big problem for Democrats and the Left in general.
Grim reading of the consumption from within of progressive activist organisations.
Bernie Sanders directive to his campaign leadership not to hire activists but people who would do what the job description required was extremely funny.
If I've learned one thing from my time in corporate, if numbers are too spectacular you either don't publish them to avoid waking up sleeping giants or you do and risk losing all credibility.
Mostly because they are usually not statistically representative and/or pulled out of context anyway.
Love this article. I wish I thought that it would help discredit Oxfam as a source but unfortunately, in the UK at least, they are regarded as an unimpeachable example of goodness. Thus they raise huge amounts of money to "help combat hunger and poverty" using emotional advertising. In reality much of their money is spent "campaigning" on issues using the kind of stats you describe.
As someone who lived in Africa for 3 years, I find the total failure of these huge charities to address the basic issues - Governance, war, corruption etc appalling. Hope your aritcle makes at least a small dent in the armour.
If income = consumption and per capita emissions can be distributed by income percentile, they aren't making dodgy assumptions so much as just assuming the conclusion.
This is precisely it: "Perhaps the people who work at Oxfam think it’s fine to do this, because we all know that global inequality and global poverty are large, so exaggerating these ills in order to spur greater action is no great crime."
It's basically the same reason medieval monks made up stories about the miracles worked by saints. In their minds they weren't misleading people, they were correctly guiding people to save their eternal souls.
Hi Noah, Max from Oxfam here. Thanks for the scrutiny as always. It would have been really nice if you had approached us first before publishing this blog, as you did when we discussed the wealth numbers a couple of years ago and when we connected you up with the researchers at Credit Suisse to discuss it further. It would seem reasonable with a blog as well read and influential as yours to have reached out first. Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can.
You can see from the replies who Noah's audience is: Conservative *blame the poor for poverty* ideologues who are satisfied to let the "invisible hand* market determine the outcomes. .......with no lower or upper limit to remuneration.......
Meanwhile the UN is begging for $6 billion to avoid starvation in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
"While Beasley (from the UN) quickly clarified that his earlier tweet referred to feeding "people on the brink of starvation" and not solving world hunger, he invited Musk to meet "anywhere—Earth or space" to discuss the potential donation.
*So far, Musk has made no commitments to the agency*. Still, the conversation prompts the question: How much of a dent would $6 billion make when it comes to feeding millions? After all, WFP raised $8.4 billion last year, yet the global food crisis has only worsened".
Just goes to show, it's time for UN agencies to be authorized to spend their own money into existence to deal with poverty alleviation and job creation. (see MMT). , limited only by the resources available for the job (to avoid inflation) , not by the whims of charity from the rich
This is just flat out lying to try and assassinate Noah’s character, and if you actually want to accomplish anything positive you should condemn lying and support accurate data-gathering.
>Just goes to show, it's time for UN agencies to be authorized to spend their own money into existence to deal with poverty alleviation and job creation. (see MMT). , limited only by the resources available for the job (to avoid inflation) , not by the whims of charity from the rich
Hahahaha Magic Money Tree? Do you really think that giving the UN (of all agencies!) a money printer will help?
The important thing is intelligent RESOURCE mobilization by the public sector (n this case, a UN agency concerned with eradicating poverty ) NOT the "money printer".; you do know money is always created out of thin air, right? But private financiers want to charge interest. for the privilege of creating money (when they write loans for 'credit worthy' customers.
The same faith that national governments would mobilize resources intelligently, (on behalf of collective well-being) if they didn't have to beg for funds from the private sector.. Governments could be so much more transparent, if everyone can see what (available) resources are being mobilized by government and for what purpose.
"You can see from the replies who Noah's audience is: Conservative *blame the poor for poverty* ideologues who are satisfied to let the "invisible hand* market determine the outcomes. .......with no lower or upper limit to remuneration......."
I did not catch that from any of the replies written here. Rather I gathered this is an audience of people who, similar to myself, have experience working in international development and harbour deep seated cynicism on its effectiveness and purpose.
The problems with poverty alleviation arise when the public sector is forced to beg for funding from the private sector. We all ought to be able to agree welfare in the form of 'sit-down money' doesn't work....as you are well aware.
So what is needed is a universal above-poverty Job Guarantee (see MMT). 'Survival of the fittest' -'invisible hand' private sector markets, with associated NAIRU theory (in neo-Keynesian orthodoxy) are THE problem.
You threw out a bunch of buzz words but did not address the main problem I pointed out - that the public sector (in this case NGOs and UN type orgs) are not efficient themselves in their operations and their program designs.
If only the only problem with poverty alleviation was about 'begging' the private sector for money.
Then we have to reform UN agencies to make them efficient.. The self-interested private sector profit seeking "invisible hand" markets will never solve poverty; that's the job of a self-funding public sector - one which doesn't have to go begging for funds from the private sector.
With transparent access to available resources, the public sector will become more efficient.
>You can see from the replies who Noah's audience is: Conservative *blame the poor for poverty* ideologues who are satisfied to let the "invisible hand* market determine the outcomes. .......with no lower or upper limit to remuneration
Refusal of private financiers to allow the public sector to fund itself is THE source of entrenched poverty.. Learn about how - and by whom - money is created, in our present *money as debt* system.
Neil, I hope your perception of the validity of MMT is not as distorted as your perception of Noah's audience seems to be. (And, to tell you the truth, I haven't actually seen presentations of MMT that would support any notion that *non-state agencies* could "spend their own money into existence.")
Private banks *lend* money into existence when they write loans (bearing interest} for credit worthy customers.
So called QE 'money printing' by central banks mostly supports the private banking system by adding money to private bank reserves; the public sector itself is not permitted to spend 'debt--free' money into existence to directly fund social policy (limited by available resources to avoid inflation, and without needing to tax or borrow from the private sector)) which is the urgently needed reform to our financial system.
Neil, The notion you convey of "lending money into existence," which relies on cases where Fed QE policy has increased money supply, does not seem to me to have anything to do with non-state agencies "spending their own money into existence." It is entirely reliant on a fiat currency controlling state, and the state's leeway to spend money into existence will ultimately cross thresholds of negative consequences if the scale loses touch with the potential to create real resources.
I think Kelton's ideas are intriguing (I haven't read the book, only commentary on it), but I don't see in your comment clear grounding in the features of MMT that I am familiar with.
Some confusion over "non-state agencies". Anyway read Kelton's book; the main criticism is the risk of inflation, but if the resources are available, there is no risk.
as a small-time capitalist myself, i am amazed at the effort that goes into attacking organizations trying to do something. tells me all i need to know about what great acts they are personally performing.
They also count recent Harvard graduates' debt as "negative wealth" to make the case that "the world's richest 10 people own more than half the world" or something like this. But by that measure, having a single dollar makes you wealthier than the bottom 45%.
"The only thing that will come from willfully (or carelessly) putting out unreliable statistics will be to make observers eventually discount you as a credible source."
I think Oxfam does good work, and the reports I've read about the organization's financial management indicate a high percentage of funds raised does go into programs, as opposed to administration and further fundraising. So I do not want to see Oxfam undermine its long-term credibility (and simultaneously prompt progressive politicians to make errors that will provide ammunition for right-wing attack). To the degree Noah's findings and conclusions are correct, I hope they will help prompt Oxfam to guard its credibility, even at some marginal short-term cost to fundraising. (I agree that the actual data is likely to motivate the same donors.)
Max Lawson of Oxfam writes in his comment above, "Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can." I'll be following to see that response, and stay open to the possibility that the Oxfam figures are reasonably grounded.
It really is a crime that we use that $1.90/day number. Think how many could be saved from poverty if we just revised that number down. #95centsperdaytohelpthepoor
Oxfam is a big, expensive organisation to run. It does PR to maintain profile. PR has to be interesting enough to inspire customer engagement. When your job is to upset people about Bad Things so that they will become your customer and buy Good Things (ie your work) it’s in your best interest to make things look as bad as possible.
As ever, fair play to the activists. This is their raison d’être. The fault lies with credulous media.
As if their bad stats are bad enough, I've never seen a SINGLE Oxfam report that discussed or took into account the benefits that arise from owning bunnies. Not one! Despite them being super cute.
Unforgivable.
As usual, ideological fanaticism results in big lies. Works that way whether one is left or right.
I just assume when I see a stat like that it’s NOT net.
If 400m raise out of poverty, 200m fall in, that’s -200m net change to poverty, but also true that “200m fell into poverty”.
That's what I thought too, but they claim it was net!!
Oh well nvm that’s just weird then
Oxfam, like most activist organizations, focuses more on ensuring a steady flow of money and attention accruing to itself than its ostensible mission.
Using their methodology, a slum dweller who has paid off their house would be richer than me. It's ludicrous.
Counterpoint: How much of the activist sphere has been shaped by the changed media environment?
Somewhat related: https://theintercept.com/2022/06/13/progressive-organizing-infighting-callout-culture/
I recall in the 90s that I'd see emotionally manipulative ads ("every X seconds a child dies in Africa") in a similar vein so I don't think it's a new phenomenon.
Ties in with David Shor's observation that the capture of liberal organizations by activists (instead of organizations accountable to people who vote for leaders, like unions) is a big problem for Democrats and the Left in general.
Grim reading of the consumption from within of progressive activist organisations.
Bernie Sanders directive to his campaign leadership not to hire activists but people who would do what the job description required was extremely funny.
If I've learned one thing from my time in corporate, if numbers are too spectacular you either don't publish them to avoid waking up sleeping giants or you do and risk losing all credibility.
Mostly because they are usually not statistically representative and/or pulled out of context anyway.
Unfortunately it seems that in the contemporary environment, the more absurdly sensational your claims, the more influential they become.
Love this article. I wish I thought that it would help discredit Oxfam as a source but unfortunately, in the UK at least, they are regarded as an unimpeachable example of goodness. Thus they raise huge amounts of money to "help combat hunger and poverty" using emotional advertising. In reality much of their money is spent "campaigning" on issues using the kind of stats you describe.
Oxfem even survived considerable negative PR and a cut in UK Government funding over serious sexual abuse claims https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/08/uk-halts-funding-for-oxfam-over-sexual-misconduct-claims
As someone who lived in Africa for 3 years, I find the total failure of these huge charities to address the basic issues - Governance, war, corruption etc appalling. Hope your aritcle makes at least a small dent in the armour.
Leave you with this from the Spectator recently https://app.spectator.co.uk/2020/04/22/mal-dafrique/content.html
If income = consumption and per capita emissions can be distributed by income percentile, they aren't making dodgy assumptions so much as just assuming the conclusion.
This is precisely it: "Perhaps the people who work at Oxfam think it’s fine to do this, because we all know that global inequality and global poverty are large, so exaggerating these ills in order to spur greater action is no great crime."
It's basically the same reason medieval monks made up stories about the miracles worked by saints. In their minds they weren't misleading people, they were correctly guiding people to save their eternal souls.
thanks for once again being a truth teller
Hi Noah, Max from Oxfam here. Thanks for the scrutiny as always. It would have been really nice if you had approached us first before publishing this blog, as you did when we discussed the wealth numbers a couple of years ago and when we connected you up with the researchers at Credit Suisse to discuss it further. It would seem reasonable with a blog as well read and influential as yours to have reached out first. Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can.
You can see from the replies who Noah's audience is: Conservative *blame the poor for poverty* ideologues who are satisfied to let the "invisible hand* market determine the outcomes. .......with no lower or upper limit to remuneration.......
Meanwhile the UN is begging for $6 billion to avoid starvation in Afghanistan and elsewhere.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/11/11/1052719247/how-6-billion-from-elon-musk-could-feed-millions-on-the-brink-of-famine
"While Beasley (from the UN) quickly clarified that his earlier tweet referred to feeding "people on the brink of starvation" and not solving world hunger, he invited Musk to meet "anywhere—Earth or space" to discuss the potential donation.
*So far, Musk has made no commitments to the agency*. Still, the conversation prompts the question: How much of a dent would $6 billion make when it comes to feeding millions? After all, WFP raised $8.4 billion last year, yet the global food crisis has only worsened".
Just goes to show, it's time for UN agencies to be authorized to spend their own money into existence to deal with poverty alleviation and job creation. (see MMT). , limited only by the resources available for the job (to avoid inflation) , not by the whims of charity from the rich
This is just flat out lying to try and assassinate Noah’s character, and if you actually want to accomplish anything positive you should condemn lying and support accurate data-gathering.
Blind 'survival of the fittest' ideologues accusing others of lying...
>Just goes to show, it's time for UN agencies to be authorized to spend their own money into existence to deal with poverty alleviation and job creation. (see MMT). , limited only by the resources available for the job (to avoid inflation) , not by the whims of charity from the rich
Hahahaha Magic Money Tree? Do you really think that giving the UN (of all agencies!) a money printer will help?
The important thing is intelligent RESOURCE mobilization by the public sector (n this case, a UN agency concerned with eradicating poverty ) NOT the "money printer".; you do know money is always created out of thin air, right? But private financiers want to charge interest. for the privilege of creating money (when they write loans for 'credit worthy' customers.
Why this faith/assumption that the UN would “mobilize” resources intelligently?
The same faith that national governments would mobilize resources intelligently, (on behalf of collective well-being) if they didn't have to beg for funds from the private sector.. Governments could be so much more transparent, if everyone can see what (available) resources are being mobilized by government and for what purpose.
Oh right. Must be why those Communist governments which didn’t have a private sector to deal with functioned splendidly.
"You can see from the replies who Noah's audience is: Conservative *blame the poor for poverty* ideologues who are satisfied to let the "invisible hand* market determine the outcomes. .......with no lower or upper limit to remuneration......."
I did not catch that from any of the replies written here. Rather I gathered this is an audience of people who, similar to myself, have experience working in international development and harbour deep seated cynicism on its effectiveness and purpose.
The problems with poverty alleviation arise when the public sector is forced to beg for funding from the private sector. We all ought to be able to agree welfare in the form of 'sit-down money' doesn't work....as you are well aware.
So what is needed is a universal above-poverty Job Guarantee (see MMT). 'Survival of the fittest' -'invisible hand' private sector markets, with associated NAIRU theory (in neo-Keynesian orthodoxy) are THE problem.
You threw out a bunch of buzz words but did not address the main problem I pointed out - that the public sector (in this case NGOs and UN type orgs) are not efficient themselves in their operations and their program designs.
If only the only problem with poverty alleviation was about 'begging' the private sector for money.
Then we have to reform UN agencies to make them efficient.. The self-interested private sector profit seeking "invisible hand" markets will never solve poverty; that's the job of a self-funding public sector - one which doesn't have to go begging for funds from the private sector.
With transparent access to available resources, the public sector will become more efficient.
>You can see from the replies who Noah's audience is: Conservative *blame the poor for poverty* ideologues who are satisfied to let the "invisible hand* market determine the outcomes. .......with no lower or upper limit to remuneration
Who here has said this?
Refusal of private financiers to allow the public sector to fund itself is THE source of entrenched poverty.. Learn about how - and by whom - money is created, in our present *money as debt* system.
>Refusal of private financiers to allow the public sector to fund itself is THE source of entrenched poverty
Ahahahaha citation sorely needed
>Learn about how - and by whom - money is created, in our present *money as debt* system
Gonna take a shot if it's Graeber
Not Graeber; start with Warren Mosler (free here:
http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf
"7 Deadly Innocent Frauds of Economic Policy"
Neil, I hope your perception of the validity of MMT is not as distorted as your perception of Noah's audience seems to be. (And, to tell you the truth, I haven't actually seen presentations of MMT that would support any notion that *non-state agencies* could "spend their own money into existence.")
Private banks *lend* money into existence when they write loans (bearing interest} for credit worthy customers.
So called QE 'money printing' by central banks mostly supports the private banking system by adding money to private bank reserves; the public sector itself is not permitted to spend 'debt--free' money into existence to directly fund social policy (limited by available resources to avoid inflation, and without needing to tax or borrow from the private sector)) which is the urgently needed reform to our financial system.
See Stephanie Kelton's "The Deficit Myth" .
Neil, The notion you convey of "lending money into existence," which relies on cases where Fed QE policy has increased money supply, does not seem to me to have anything to do with non-state agencies "spending their own money into existence." It is entirely reliant on a fiat currency controlling state, and the state's leeway to spend money into existence will ultimately cross thresholds of negative consequences if the scale loses touch with the potential to create real resources.
I think Kelton's ideas are intriguing (I haven't read the book, only commentary on it), but I don't see in your comment clear grounding in the features of MMT that I am familiar with.
Some confusion over "non-state agencies". Anyway read Kelton's book; the main criticism is the risk of inflation, but if the resources are available, there is no risk.
as a small-time capitalist myself, i am amazed at the effort that goes into attacking organizations trying to do something. tells me all i need to know about what great acts they are personally performing.
Neil, I mean this in the kindest possible sense: touch grass.
Will do; in the meantime, life is not as fine (!) as it is for the likes of us who have the resources and time to exchange views here....
They also count recent Harvard graduates' debt as "negative wealth" to make the case that "the world's richest 10 people own more than half the world" or something like this. But by that measure, having a single dollar makes you wealthier than the bottom 45%.
"The only thing that will come from willfully (or carelessly) putting out unreliable statistics will be to make observers eventually discount you as a credible source."
I think Oxfam does good work, and the reports I've read about the organization's financial management indicate a high percentage of funds raised does go into programs, as opposed to administration and further fundraising. So I do not want to see Oxfam undermine its long-term credibility (and simultaneously prompt progressive politicians to make errors that will provide ammunition for right-wing attack). To the degree Noah's findings and conclusions are correct, I hope they will help prompt Oxfam to guard its credibility, even at some marginal short-term cost to fundraising. (I agree that the actual data is likely to motivate the same donors.)
Max Lawson of Oxfam writes in his comment above, "Nevertheless we do feel we can respond to your important points, and we will do so as quick as we can." I'll be following to see that response, and stay open to the possibility that the Oxfam figures are reasonably grounded.
I support all posts which reference or use imagery from the Adventures of Baron Munchausen.
Glad you concluded that this is nothing new but that Oxfam is a serial repeat offender at publishing dodgy data.
It really is a crime that we use that $1.90/day number. Think how many could be saved from poverty if we just revised that number down. #95centsperdaytohelpthepoor
Honestly, I think it works like this.
Oxfam is a big, expensive organisation to run. It does PR to maintain profile. PR has to be interesting enough to inspire customer engagement. When your job is to upset people about Bad Things so that they will become your customer and buy Good Things (ie your work) it’s in your best interest to make things look as bad as possible.
As ever, fair play to the activists. This is their raison d’être. The fault lies with credulous media.
Ace piece - and thanks.