This is a great conversation. If I can make a request, I think it would help clarify the issues if some commenter would expand on why the more nuanced approach to poverty measurement that Martin Ravallion describes is necessarily better than targeting a very imperfect weighted composite. What I mean is that of course each of these approaches will be prone to error, and I'm not sure about the context of the decisions. Poverty policies are very politicized - which of these approaches is more immune to political pressure (and is that a good thing)? Who is making these carefully calculated, multidimensional poverty assessments? Does it depend on the context which of these approaches we prefer?