Of course not. We've just been lifting many hundred millions of people out of poverty in China, India, South-East Asia and elsewhere, but what does this have to do with "enriching the poor"? Maybe you need to look beyond the literal "first world problems" in your privileged corner of the West.
I love this line of thinking because it always shows someone has put forth no effort into what the "poverty reduction" means. The International Poverty line has been $1.90/day. So, if you make the equivalent of $1.90 in your country or higher, then you are not in poverty. Now how about you go and do some work and see how nutritionally complete your diet will be on $1.90.
I somewhat disagree with zozbot and I agree with your material analysis (I'd add something about the rising Gini indices in the mentioned developing nations), but this sentence adds nothing to the conversation.
In Cambodia... I could easily feed myself on $1.90 a day, if I wasn't white and getting barang (foreigner) prices.
As much as I love Döner, half of one isn't nutritionally complete.
OK, half a kebab and a few beers. Many's the time I've woken up to empty beeer bottles and a half-eaten kebab and I haven't starved to death ;)
Can't disagree with that. But we haven't been enriching the poor. We've been practicing trickle down economics instead.
Enriching the rich has marvelous side effects like a proliferation of low paying contract work (jobs!), ratcheting housing prices (wealth!) and increased production of luxury goods (utopia!).
But then you look at minimum wage, inflation and the consumer price index; and see that the poor have been hemorrhaging purchasing power since the 1970s.
So, yeah. Increasing wealth is great for humanity. But there's a wide gap between anticapitalism and the neoliberal/libertarian economic theories which brought today's plutocracy. The middle ground is classical capitalism.