The report distinguished 6 different categories of expenditure levels; the lowest of which includes households that spend less than LE10,000 ($1,636) annually, making up some 22 per cent Egypt’s families.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/59433/Business/Economy/Poverty-rate-rises-in-Egypt,-widening-gap-between-.aspx
The poverty rate in Egypt climbed from 21 percent in 2009 to 25 percent in 2011 - the year Egyptians overthrew President Hosni Mubarak in a popular uprising that was partly fueled by economic grievances. Another 20 percent of the population lives near the poverty line, according to the World Bank.
"On average, the Egyptian family spends 40 percent of their income for buying food. For the poorest families, about 25 percent of population, more than 50 percent of their income goes for buying food," Bordignon said.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/11/us-egypt-food-idUSBRE93A0WM20130411
60% 0f Egyptians earn less the $277 a month:
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/3/12/28558/Business/Economy/Six-out-of--Egyptian-households-earn-less-than--a-.aspx
It is worse in Rural Egypt then in Urban Egypt:
http://www.worldcrunch.com/world-affairs/poverty-in-egypt-on-the-rise-with-urban-rural-divide-deepening-/c1s3868/
17.9% of Egyptians live on under $2 a day in 2002, this has increased to the above mentioned 25%:
http://www1.aucegypt.edu/src/wsite1/background/nationalprofile/poverty.htm
Paper the URBAN Egyptian provery may be grossly underestimated:
http://www.soas.ac.uk/cdpr/publications/dv/file58993.pdf
A recent government survey has revealed an increasing number of Egyptians are struggling to clothe and feed themselves whilst keeping a roof over their heads. The report by the Egyptian Food Observatory found that of the 1680 households surveyed in September 2012, 86% said their income was insufficient to cover their monthly food, clothes and shelter bill. This marked a rise from 74% back in 2012. In an effort to cope with this growing food divide, many families reported adopting extreme coping strategies such as borrowing food and money. Indeed, overall 81.4% of households surveyed said their income was insufficient to meet their monthly food needs.
http://www.greenprophet.com/2013/02/egypt-food-poverty-on-the-rise/
http://www.greenprophet.com/2012/10/arab-spring-countries-face-increased-risk-of-food-price-shocks-in-2013/
20% of Egyptians get 40% of its wealth, 10% of Egyptians get 27%:
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/egypt/income-share-held-by-highest-10percent-wb-data.html
I.e. the bottom half of the top 20%, get HALF the income of the top half (and given this is based on Egyptian supplied information, some question as to the Top 10% only getting 10%.,
Sorry, 86% of the people of Egypt can NOT pay for their "food, clothes and shelter bill", how can their pay for Twitter? How can the 60% of Egyptian earn less the $277 a month pay for Twitter? That is less the $10 FOR EVERYTHING, i.e not only food, but RENT, TAXES, MEDICAL CARE, DENTAL CARE, CLOTHING etc. Thus the people on Twitter can not be more then 20% of number of Egyptians, for that is about the total number of Egyptians who have ready access to a computer. You get into the bottom 60%, you have people who have a weak hold on electricity let alone a computer (and if you read the article I site above, they is a question as to the number of people among the 60%, there are strong reasons for the Former Government of the Generals to keep the number of the poor low.
I remember right after the Egyptian Revolution as the Egyptians who had access to computers complained about losing the Revolution to the Moslem Brotherhood. Why did the Moslem Brotherhood win out? They went into the Slums and the Rural poor areas AND talked to the poor, something the computer literate people did not want to do.
Historically it is among the poor where revolutions are won and lost The French Revolution was dying, till the French poor took over the Bastille and show they support for the Revolution. Lenin plans to take over Russia was in tatters when he arrived back in Russia in 1917, but the poor wanted "Food and Peace" and he gave into that promise and took over. The French Commune of 1871 was successful for the poor of Paris supported it, till the rural poor filled in the French Army and permitted the French Government to take Paris from the Commune (and this was done for many of the French Rural poor had received their land from Napoleon, who implemented land reform, land reform that the French Commune was accused of wanting to undo). The Mexican Revolution of 1910 was started as a demand by the Mexican peasants for land reform, and ended with enough land reform to undermine further fighting for more land reform (and land reform is a big issue in Mexico to this day).
Please note the French Revolution was preceded by Famine, as was the Revolution of 1848. The Unrest in Mexico was preceded by drop in crop prices (and ended with an increase in Crop prices due to WWI AND the withdraw of Russian Food from the international market from 1917-1924). One analyst said the War in Vietnam can be traced to the drop in the price of rice starting in the 1930s and its lack of rise till long after the war in Vietnam was over. The whole problem with the Middle East is the reduction of what people can afford to eat, and the refusal of the Government to do anything about it. Until that problem is resolved, Egypt and the whole middle east will be unstable at best.
Side note: The Communists have a tendency to discount the American Revolution as a non-Marxist Revolution. The problem with that approach is the American Revolution was less a revolution then a dissolution of a long time alliance. America had been de factor Independent since at the latest 1690s (with New England, Maryland and Virginia being Independent since the 1640s, when England fought its own Civil War). These colonies had been abandoned by England as England fought its Civil War and thus became used NOT having to deal with England, except as one would deal with a close ally.
After the Restoration in 1660, King Charles II and then James II needed money to pay off the cost of the Restoration. Charles II sold Calais, on the French English Channel Coast (which Cromwell had won at the end of his rule of England) back to the French. Charles II then establish what is now North Carolina, mostly to obtain turpentine which was in great demand in England (mostly to be used seal wooden ships). Charles II wanted money more then he wanted to rule Carolina so as long as the turpentine flowed, he cared less what the people in the Carolinas did (i.e. de factor independence like New England, Virginia and Maryland).
During the rule of Charles II, England took New York from the Dutch, Charles gave New York to his brother, the Duke of York, later King James II. James II had plans to incorporate New England with New York but that ended when he was overthrown by his cousin William III, Duke of Orange and leader of the Dutch. William III's hold on England was weak and preferred to fight James II in Ireland, then return New York to Holland. Thus New England kept its Independence and New York obtained its de facto independence in the 1690s (Abandoned by both the Dutch and the English, except for trade, which both countries kept a strong interest in).
James II, just before he was overthrown. had sold Pennsylvania to William Penn and New Jersey to two other loyalists, who he owned money to (in exchange for Pennsylvania and New Jersey the debts were abolished). In the resulting Proprietary Colonies, the Proprietaries (i.e. the owners) of the Colony appointed the Governor which had been the rule in Maryland. These Governors were either paid by the Proprietary owner OR was the owner themselves (William Penn did this, as did some of his decedents).
In the Royal Colonies, except for Virginia, the pay of the Governor was set 100% by the Colony. When a Colony converted from a Charter or a Proprietary Colony became a Royal Colony, this became the rule in those colonies. Virginia was the sole exception, there was a tax on export of Tobacco in Virginia that went to the Governor.
Thus the North American Colonies had little to deal with England from a Legal Point of view from at least 1688 if not earlier, instead had to deal with the "Owners" of the Colonies. The Governor was so dependent on the Colonial legislature for money, most governors just agreed to whatever the colonist wanted (in exchange for whatever the Governor could get in the from of money or goods that he could sell for money). English law was ignored if the Colonies did not want it enforced (And this included trading with the Enemy, as New England was a major Source of Food for the sugar island in the West Indies in the 1700s, even when the food was for French Islands and France and England were at war).
Due to the above, America often acted independent of England all through the 1700s, but at the same time the Colonies were afraid of the French in Canada and thus valued what is better viewed as the Alliance with England. When the French were driven out of Canada, the British took over much of the role the French had had prior to 1763 among the Native Americans and that put Britain on a collision course with America, which saw the Mississippi River drainage area as they own. Thus the various efforts by the British to contain the Colonies East of the Appalachians and to force the Colonies to obey English rules as to trade was grounds for a dissolution of the alliance.
Historically, when you see a dissolution of a long time alliance, the allies tend to view the break like how a married couple view a divorce. i.e. it had to be the fault of the other and lets force them back into the alliance. For example, in the Middle ages, England and Spain had been closely allied, mostly against France. The Amanda was more an effort by Spain to return England to that Alliance then to conquer England. The Soviet Union's invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1967 was more an effort to keep Czechoslovakia in the alliance with the Soviet Union then anything else. The US movement into Vietnam was an effort to keep Vietnam allied with the US, then to take over Vietnam (and the same with Korea). The Soviet Union's invasion of Afghanistan was to keep Afghanistan within the Soviet Sphere of influence not to take over the country.
If you look over the above example, you see one important similarity. such invasion tend to be huge and resented (The Czech's resented the Soviet Invasion, but did not go into open warfare for the Soviet Union was to powerful compared to what is now the Czech republic. Slovakia, on the other hand, appears to have supported the invasion).
Thus the American Revolution is more like the above invasions to restore an alliance, then an invasion to keep a colony a colony. At that is what the Marxist miss in the American Revolution, it was less of a Revolution then a break with old ally, a break the US needed to do and a break England disliked for it weakened England.
I bring up the American Revolution for it is a bad comparison to what is happening in Egypt, The French Revolution of 1789 and 1848 (and the Commune of 1871) along with the Russian Revolution of 1917 are closer in nature to what is happening in Egypt then what happened in the US in 1776 (and as to the English Civil War of 1640, in many ways it is more like what is happening in Egypt, due to what is now considered the height of the Little Ice Age, food production was down and people were concerned about food, at the time religion was used to justify the revolt, but the over all decline in food production was the real driving force).
Second Side note: Colonial America had three types of Colonies, Proprietary. Charter and Royal. Only New York was founded as a Royal Colony. Once a Colony became a Royal Colony it stayed a Royal Colony till the American Revolution. Of the five Proprietary Colonies, two, Maryland and Pennsylvania remained Proprietary till after the American Revolution. The other three, New Jersey in 1736, Carolina in 1729, and Georgia in 1752 became Royal Colonies (With Carolina being divided into North and South Carolina).
New England and Virginia had both started as Charter Colonies. Virginia became a Royal Colony in 1624 when it became clear the charter company had become unable to defend or even control the colony (in 1620 Virginia had permitted the first Colonial Assembly to be elected and to meet, due to the financial crisis that would lead to the Royal take over in 1624). New England remained a Charter Colony till the charter was revoked by James II as part of a plan to make New England one colony, but as that plan was being implemented, James II was overthrown.
William of Orange made Massachusetts and New Hampshire Royal Colonies 1692 (They had been Charter Colonies). Connecticut had become a Royal Colony in 1636 and would remain so till Independence. Rhode Island received a charter in 1663 and alone remained a Charter Colony till the American Revolution (Through both Connecticut and Rhode Island would have been part of the Dominion of New England, James II had proposed in the 1680s). Thus till the American Revolution only Rhode Island could pick its own Governor, in the other 12 Colonies the King or the Property owners appointed the Governor. This lead to a Colonial preference for rule by the Legislature not the Governor.
.
= new reply since forum marked as read
.[15]
