|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
 Posted - 03/20/2002 : 07:52:57 [Permalink]
|
A few more stats for you (don't worry, I'll get bored of this soon):
"*The United Nations Development Program (UNDP) reported in 1998 that the world's 225 richest people now have a combined wealth of $1 trillion. That's equal to the combined annual income of the world's 2.5 billion poorest people.
*The wealth of the three most well-to-do individuals now exceeds the combined GDP of the 48 least developed countries.
*While global GNP grew 40 percent between 1970 and 1985 (suggesting widening prosperity), the number of poor grew by 17 percent."
And here's one to really make you eyes pop!
"*Microsoft CEO Bill Gates has more wealth than the bottom 45 percent of American households combined."
These stats are from:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Acropolis/5148/wealth_distribution1999.html
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 03/20/2002 07:58:45
Edited by - NottyImp on 03/20/2002 08:00:08 |
 |
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 08:12:55 [Permalink]
|
NottyImp, are you upset that people don't have food, or are you upset that people don't have Big Macs? This is why I was concerned about the definition of wealth.
Are we talking lack of needs, or lack of wants? I have a feeling that both are being lumped together (especially in the U.S.), and this is not right.
A question, not an argument:
How much food does $2 a day buy? This is the problem with these statistics. One most likely can't live on $2 a day in the U.S. $2 a day may be completely adequate to feed a family in another country. There is no (apparent) perspective in these statistics.
I asked about reality vs. fantasyland because I don't believe it is possible to live in a world in which charity is not needed. But I can daydream all day about how things could be "in a perfect world" (i.e. fantasyland).
[quote]And allowing billions of people to live in poverty whilst a small minority of the world are fabulously rich *isn't* oppression?[/quote]
No, it's not. Wealthy people in general are not accumulating wealth in one hand while purposely preventing the poor from getting ahead. The U.S. is a testament to this. Look at a lot of Koreans, for example. They come here with little to nothing, work hard for one generation, and their kids are in college becoming doctors and computer programmers.
Donnie B., yes, you are right, thank you.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 08:15:59 [Permalink]
|
Grr! These statistics are so friggin' misleading!
These people do not have trillions of dollars stuck under their matresses!
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/20/2002 08:16:52 |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 09:03:52 [Permalink]
|
I'd say that the Fed is an "intentional" organization, as is the World Bank and the IMF.
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=9278
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 10:28:13 [Permalink]
|
"NottyImp, are you upset that people don't have food, or are you upset that people don't have Big Macs? This is why I was concerned about the definition of wealth."
I wouldn't want anyone to have Big Macs, how cruel do you think I am? Frankly, both, and what's wrong with that? Who defines the difference between "needs" and "wants"? You're just using that as a smokescreen to try to deny the obvious, blatant inequity in the distribution of world wealth.
"No, it's not. Wealthy people in general are not accumulating wealth in one hand while purposely preventing the poor from getting ahead."
Yes they are! It is manifestly *not* a level playing field. Wealth begets wealth, and poverty begets poverty. Where in capitalist history has there *ever* been an equitable distribution of wealth to support your assertion?
"Grr! These statistics are so friggin' misleading!
These people do not have trillions of dollars stuck under their matresses!"
Pesky dammed stats getting in the way of your argument! Who said they *literally* had that money stuffed under their matresses? Some of it will undoubtedly be in non-liquid assets, but so what?
"How much food does $2 a day buy? This is the problem with these statistics. One most likely can't live on $2 a day in the U.S. $2 a day may be completely adequate to feed a family in another country. There is no (apparent) perspective in these statistics."
Agreed. But there's plenty you *can't* buy with $2 dollars a day in *any* country. Like decent health-care and a fully-realised education for your kids, for example. Are these "needs" or "wants": you tell me. After all, we're not talking yachts and sports-cars here are we?
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 11:16:57 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
"NottyImp, are you upset that people don't have food, or are you upset that people don't have Big Macs? This is why I was concerned about the definition of wealth."
Frankly, both, and what's wrong with that? Who defines the difference between "needs" and "wants"?[/quote]
I believe "needs" and "wants" are pretty much universally defined. Food, clothing, and shelter. The tomatoes I grew in my garden last year meets a basic need, food. The Big Mac that I occasionally buy is a luxury item that also happens to meet that need, but is not necessary. It most certainly is not necessary to the point where we need to redistribute wealth so I can buy Big Macs!
[quote]You're just using that as a smokescreen to try to deny the obvious, blatant inequity in the distribution of world wealth.[/quote]
No, I have no use for smokescreens. Convince me I'm wrong, and I'll happily thank you.
[quote]"No, it's not. Wealthy people in general are not accumulating wealth in one hand while purposely preventing the poor from getting ahead."
Yes they are! It is manifestly *not* a level playing field.[/quote]
Such is life.
[quote]Wealth begets wealth, and poverty begets poverty.[/quote]
Not necessarily. There are innumerable examples (see my Korean one above) which invalidate this statement.
[quote]Where in capitalist history has there *ever* been an equitable distribution of wealth to support your assertion?[/quote]
My point relies not at all on this obscure idea of "equitable distribution of wealth".
[quote]"Grr! These statistics are so friggin' misleading!
These people do not have trillions of dollars stuck under their matresses!"
Pesky dammed stats getting in the way of your argument! Who said they *literally* had that money stuffed under their matresses? Some of it will undoubtedly be in non-liquid assets, but so what?[/quote]
I'm sorry, but you must be either being dishonest, or purposefully dense.
Those statistics are a straw man. Their wealth is used to create thousands and thousands of jobs, which creates opportunities for thousands and thousands of people to become educated, educate their kids, provide medical care, etc.
[quote]After all, we're not talking yachts and sports-cars here are we?[/quote]
Well, you stated above that you are upset about there not being an equal distribution of luxuries. So apparently we are!
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 03/20/2002 11:21:57 |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 11:20:35 [Permalink]
|
[quote]A few more stats for you (don't worry, I'll get bored of this soon)[/quote]
Well, as for myself, petty class hatred quickly becomes boring. 
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 11:28:15 [Permalink]
|
You're right. That's why I try to talk against the wealthy taking advantage of the poor.
[quote]
Well, as for myself, petty class hatred quickly becomes boring.
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 11:44:37 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
I'm going to guess that we could afford to support everyone that drinks that much and doesn't have a job and still not come anywhere near the cost of corporate welfare.
[/quote]
Why would I want to support someone who doesn't want to help themself?
*
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Snake
SFN Addict
USA
2511 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 12:03:32 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
A question, not an argument:
How much food does $2 a day buy? This is the problem with these statistics. One most likely can't live on $2 a day in the U.S. $2 a day may be completely adequate to feed a family in another country. There is no (apparent) perspective in these statistics.[/quote]
Oh Krist! Give me $2 a day and I'd eat very well. I live in Los ANgeles, Calif. (ok, so I have an orange tree in my yard. But still, that is a lot of money to spend for food per day IMO- as long as you don't go to a fancy health food store where they over charge on organic vegies.)
But on the other hand, one of the 1st times I was in Bangkok, when the Bhat was the average 25 to $1. I bought a pineapple for what would have been 25 cents US. I don't even like pinapple but this was the sweetest, juicest one I'd very tasted and very large. I could have lived like a king there for $2 a day. A comparable pinapple here would have been, I think $1 or more.
So when I hear about the poor people in 3rd world countries living in poverty because they sleep on the floor, give me a break. I sleep on the floor when I go there too and my family there is not poor. Do you know how hot it is there? It's better to sleep on the floor.
You can't compare what we think $2 will buy here to the standards of what other people in the world are used to living with. Not everyone wants a TV in every room.
*
Earth is the insane asylum for the universe.
|
|
|
|
Gorgo
SFN Die Hard
USA
5310 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 13:07:34 [Permalink]
|
No one is alone. Why do you think you as an individual have anything? Because of all those that have come before you, the roads that others have built, the schools, the phone lines, the technology. Why do you think you deserve so much and someone else doesn't? Because they don't work? Like who, the guy beside you at work that everyone says does nothing, or the woman that married wealthy or inherited wealth? Why do I owe them a living? Do you think they'd have a dime without a lot of other people? Do you think Ozzie Osbourne has contributed so much more to society than that person that you think won't help him/herself?
Why should you make the head of a corporation that cheats and pollutes wealthy and not the guy that at least has the decency to sit at home and drink?
[quote]
Why would I want to support someone who doesn't want to help themself?
[/quote]
"Not one human life should be expended in this reckless violence called a war against terrorism." - Howard Zinn |
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 13:10:24 [Permalink]
|
"I believe "needs" and "wants" are pretty much universally defined. Food, clothing, and shelter. The tomatoes I grew in my garden last year meets a basic need, food. The Big Mac that I occasionally buy is a luxury item that also happens to meet that need, but is not necessary. It most certainly is not necessary to the point where we need to redistribute wealth so I can buy Big Macs!"
Frankly to me this is irrelevant. It's easy for you to pontificate about "needs" and "wants" from the perspective of a priviliged Western existence. The desire to improve ones life through the aquisition of what you call "wants" is every bit as legitimate a demand as the mere basics of "needs".
"Such is life."
At least you admit this much, then.
But it clearly doesn't bother you that even under you own analysis some people are disadvantaged thus.
"Not necessarily. There are innumerable examples (see my Korean one above) which invalidate this statement."
We're talking about general trends here, not individual cases.
"My point relies not at all on this obscure idea of 'equitable distribution of wealth'."
What's obscure about this idea? It's been omnipresent in socialist/egalitarian thinking of many different varieties for centuries. Do you really not understand it at all?
"Well, you stated above that you are upset about there not being an equal distribution of luxuries. So apparently we are!"
That statement clearly referred to my point that $2 cannot buy decent health-care or education for billions of people in any country I know of. Answer the point.
"I'm sorry, but you must be either being dishonest, or purposefully dense.
Those statistics are a straw man. Their wealth is used to create thousands and thousands of jobs, which creates opportunities for thousands and thousands of people to become educated, educate their kids, provide medical care, etc."
I am neither as should be obvious to you. Why do you have to resort to insulting me when my point is perfectly clear? Please retract that statement or I will report your post to the board moderators.
As to YOUR point, these statistics are not a "straw man". They clearly elucidate the distribution of wealth in society. Equally, I hardly think that the wealthy are providing jobs etc. out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it to make more money.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968. |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 13:57:16 [Permalink]
|
[quote]
Why do you have to resort to insulting me when my point is perfectly clear? Please retract that statement or I will report your post to the board moderators.[/quote]
Wow, and I though [i]I[/i] had thin skin! I'm sorry you think this was an insult.
And as we seem to be typing right past each other, I'm bowing out.
Have fun.
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 16:18:20 [Permalink]
|
[quote][quote]"Such is life."
At least you admit this much, then.
But it clearly doesn't bother you that even under you own analysis some people are disadvantaged thus.[/quote][/quote]
Implicitly included in Tokyo's succinct comment are the notions that a) a human has an innate drive to continue living; b) resources are necessarily limited. Notty, I hate to tell you this but the inescapable conclusion is that competition is inevitable. Pure altruism is a myth. This is what is predicted by evolutionary theory.
[quote]As to YOUR point, these statistics are not a "straw man". They clearly elucidate the distribution of wealth in society. Equally, I hardly think that the wealthy are providing jobs etc. out of the goodness of their hearts. They are doing it to make more money.[/quote]
Notty, if you have problems with the things that might motivate business owners to provide jobs, you're going to be an angry little gremlin for a long time. You're also going to have to come up with an economic system that even [i]allows[/i] altruistic behavior. What do you think would happen to a capitalistic framework that is primarily motivated by the "goodness of [business owners'] hearts"?
Let me briefly testify for Tokyo. Understand, I am not begrudging you your offense. If you wish to be personally upset by TD's comments, that is your right and neither I nor anyone can tell you what is appropriate for you. That said, I find TD to be one of the least intentionally offensive posters here. I dare say his criticisms are directed at your behavior, rather than your character.
An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field.
-Niels Bohr
|
|
|
|
NottyImp
Skeptic Friend
United Kingdom
143 Posts |
Posted - 03/20/2002 : 16:43:51 [Permalink]
|
"And as we seem to be typing right past each other, I'm bowing out." (TokyoDreamer)
I had come to the same conclusion. I suspect we come form *very* different ends of the political spectrum and are unlikely to agree on the problems, let alone the solutions to what we are discussing.
"Notty, if you have problems with the things that might motivate business owners to provide jobs, you're going to be an angry little gremlin for a long time." (Phdreamer)
Indeed I am likely to be an angry "little gremlin". I have no problem with that, as no-one in this discourse has given me any valid reason not to be.
"You're also going to have to come up with an economic system that even [i]allows[/i] altruistic behavior. What do you think would happen to a capitalistic framework that is primarily motivated by the "goodness of [business owners'] hearts"? (PhDreamer)"
No problem: production for need first (and want second), not for profit.
"I dare say his criticisms are directed at your behavior, rather than your character."
Well, I object just as much to that as anything else. Having described me first as a bigot (and then retracted that), he gave me the option of being either dense or dishonest. I am neither.
"Be realistic, demand the impossible" - graffiti from Paris, May 1968.
Edited by - NottyImp on 03/20/2002 16:47:34 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
