China lifted 98.99 million people out of poverty. New Zealand lifted 18,400 children out of poverty.

Disregarding GDPs and population rates, both have similar approach to poverty reduction; income, employment and education. But China went further to relocate rural villagers to established cities.

The move challenged cultural lifestyles, but needs are met in an established city more than rural. Whether the people are moved from lower socio economic areas or developments established in rural, it's economic. That places economic developments a major factor in poverty reduction.

However, the two systems of distribution varied. China is claimed to be a Communist country. I don't know what that is but a general opinion follows that citizens have no rights and submit their everyday life to the regime. I think that's more like a dictatorship by an individual or by a party.

I know China is none of the above as it transitioned from ancient Communism to modern Capitalism. In between the two extremes is Socialism. That is where China is - modern socialism. It means power is gradually distributed from its communist regime to the community. And Socialism is the ownership of wealth and resources by the people. It seeks to bridge inequalities /equities and encourage diversity.

The New Zealand system of distribution is based upon a pre-existing structure. The government may formulate policies to address inequality/ equity, but policies are filtered through the structure. If the government allocates $2 billion to increase income, provide housing and healthcare for lower socio economic areas, this fund is filtered.

The filter is managed by middlemen and women from upper echelons who administer and pay themselves from the same fund. Thus the fund is substantially reduced by the time it reaches the intended recipient. So the structure is maintained but the social development at the targeted area remains static. And the same goes for social issues of inequality /equity, unemployment, violence and crime.

The relative ratio of poverty prompts the structure, maintained by a trickle down filter. If Joe Block at the bottom of the heap receives $20 to help out with his social needs, the middlemen and women administering the same structure also receive $20 or more although they don't have a social need. So to maintain the structure, the need for a supply of folks in Poverty is essential. And statistics show that Maori and Pacific are at the bottom of the heap.

So is China's victory over extreme poverty achieved through lack of structure - the middle men and women who pay themselves with public funds. Socialism in its true sense is working for China and not for New Zealand.

Maori for centuries have endured this structural maintenance of Poverty. Heaps of money thrown to the problem but gobbled up by middle men and women and the problem remains static. Is it any wonder therefore that Maori is now demanding to replace the middlemen and women with their own?

For China, its social and economic success is filtered through a social political filter disseminated by opposing countries among competitors. For New Zealand, this is an Adversarial aspect attached to the democratic process. That means, one is entitled to the expression of his/her opinion no matter how vulgar that is.

And this attachment has become a powerful medium to deliver antagonistic propaganda especially of China. It promotes fake news to distort the views of successful social achievements.

In China, poor folks may require to relocate to areas for better health and jobs, but the antagonistic media may report that folks were forced out of their homes against their will to make their homes in camps.

In New Zealand, the government may follow scientific advice to fluoridate to water in order to minimise tooth decay among the young. The antagonistic media may report that the government is attempting to control the population by adding something to the water.

China attempts to silence this social media freedom with internal regulation, but agents of propaganda claim their so-called rights to expression of opinion is violated. New Zealand on the other hand allows for individuals to state their claims without repercussions, but totally filtered by the media.

While China faces a taunting task of international propaganda, New Zealand's media is largely owned by the private sector. And they are both subjects of continuous propaganda.

And this propaganda has become crucial to the control of the contagious virus - covid-19. Would hearsay of populous claims win the war of misinformation at the expense of a spiral I don't know, but it looks like a successful control of the virus may also win populous support for the regime in place.

And that makes the media the most powerful ruler of dictatorship. Information on Poverty, status quo, social structure and covid-19 are all determined by media influence of public opinions. But the so-called right of expression and democracy fall victims to that dictate.

Folks don't see for themselves that maintenance of Poverty, the status quo and social structure is the domain of tribal right wing parties along with the private sector.

Dont drop your guard, covid-19 is hanging around †