<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Global poverty down between 1970 and 2006</title>
	<atom:link href="http://technoccult.net/archives/2009/11/03/global-poverty-down-between-1970-and-2006/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://technoccult.net/archives/2009/11/03/global-poverty-down-between-1970-and-2006/</link>
	<description>A General Interest Blog for Weirdos</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 16 Mar 2010 22:52:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Klint Finley</title>
		<link>http://technoccult.net/archives/2009/11/03/global-poverty-down-between-1970-and-2006/comment-page-1/#comment-329059</link>
		<dc:creator>Klint Finley</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 09 Nov 2009 18:31:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mutateweb.com/?p=8452#comment-329059</guid>
		<description>Thanks for the sanity check on that, Sam. I haven&#039;t looked at the study&#039;s methodology, but I find their conclusion non-controversial. China, India, and Brazil made huge inroads during this time period, probably enough to knock a dent in global poverty statistics.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thanks for the sanity check on that, Sam. I haven&#8217;t looked at the study&#8217;s methodology, but I find their conclusion non-controversial. China, India, and Brazil made huge inroads during this time period, probably enough to knock a dent in global poverty statistics.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sam w</title>
		<link>http://technoccult.net/archives/2009/11/03/global-poverty-down-between-1970-and-2006/comment-page-1/#comment-327999</link>
		<dc:creator>sam w</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Nov 2009 02:26:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mutateweb.com/?p=8452#comment-327999</guid>
		<description>http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research

A December 1, 2002, news story in the New York Times[1] on the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., of Cambridge, MA, called the institution non-partisan but failed to identify a penny of the $10 million it receives in conservative philanthropic underwriting.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research" rel="nofollow">http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=National_Bureau_of_Economic_Research</a></p>
<p>A December 1, 2002, news story in the New York Times[1] on the National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc., of Cambridge, MA, called the institution non-partisan but failed to identify a penny of the $10 million it receives in conservative philanthropic underwriting.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
